Any tips for asset allocation across multiple retirement accounts?
I have a similar plan and a similar number of accounts.   I think seeking a target asset allocation mix across all investment accounts is an excellent idea. I use excel to track where I am and then use it to adjust to get closer (but not exactly) to my target percentages. Until you have some larger balances, it may be prudent to use less categories or realize that you can't come exactly to your percentages, but can get close.   I also simplify by primarily investing in various index funds.  That means that in my portfolio, each category has 1 or 2 funds, not 10 or 20. "I have a similar situation -- five different accounts between me and my wife. Just as you and @Alex B describe, I maintain my asset allocation across the combination of all accounts. I also maintain a spreadsheet to track the targets, deviations from the targets, amounts required to get back in balance, and overall performance. I (mostly) don't use mutual funds. I have selected, for each category, 1 or 2 ETFs. Choosing index ETFs with low expense ratios and a brokerage with cheap or free trades keeps expenses low. (My broker offers free ETF trades if you buy off their list as long as you aren't short-term trading; this is great for rebalancing for free 2 or 3 times a year.) Using ETFs also solves the minimum balance problem -- but watch out for commissions. If you pay $10 to buy $500 worth of an ETF, that's an immediate 2% loss; trade a couple of times a year and that ETF has to gain 5% just to break even. One issue that comes up is managing cash and avoiding transaction fees. Say your IRA has all the growth stock funds and your Roth has the bonds. Stocks do well and bonds do poorly, so you sell off some stocks, which creates a bunch of cash in your IRA. Now you want to buy some bonds but you don't have enough cash in your Roth, so you buy the bonds in your IRA. Not a problem at first but if you don't manage it you can end up with small amounts of various funds spread across all of your accounts. If you're not careful you can end up paying two commissions (in two different accounts) to sell off / purchase enough of a category to get back to your targets. Another problem I had is that only one account (401k) is receiving deposits on a regular basis, and that's all going into an S&P 500 index fund. This makes it so that my allocation is off by a fair amount every quarter or so -- too much in large cap equities, not enough of everything else. My solution to this going forward is to ""over-rebalance"" a couple of times a year: sell enough SPY from my other accounts so that I'm under-allocated in large caps by the amount I expect to add to my 401k over the next 3 months. (So that in six months at my next rebalancing I'm only 3 months over-allocated to large caps -- plus or minus whatever gains/losses there are.)"
This is really an extended comment on the last paragraph of @BenMiller's answer. When (the manager of) a mutual fund sells securities that the fund holds for a profit, or receives dividends (stock dividends, bond interest, etc.), the fund has the option of paying taxes on that money (at corporate rates) and distributing the rest to shareholders in the fund, or passing on the entire amount (categorized as dividends, qualified dividends, net short-term capital gains, and net long-term capital gains) to the shareholders who then pay taxes on the money that they receive at their own respective tax rates. (If the net gains are negative, i.e. losses, they are not passed on to the shareholders. See the last paragraph below).  A shareholder doesn't have to reinvest the distribution amount into the mutual fund: the option of receiving the money as cash always exists, as does the option of investing the distribution into a different mutual fund in the same family, e.g. invest the distributions from Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund into Vanguard's Total Bond Index Fund (and/or vice versa). This last can be done without needing a brokerage account, but doing it across fund families will require the money to transit through a brokerage account or a personal account. Such cross-transfers can be helpful in reducing the amounts of money being transferred in re-balancing asset allocations as is recommended be done once or twice a year. Those investing in load funds instead of no-load funds should keep in mind that several load funds waive the load for re-investment of distributions but some funds don't: the sales charge for the reinvestment is pure profit for the fund if the fund was purchased directly or passed on to the brokerage if the fund was purchased through a brokerage account. As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions  from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price. That is, there is no change in the value of the investment: if you had $10,000 in the fund the day before the distribution was declared, you still have $10,000 after the distribution is declared but you own more shares in the fund than you had previously. (In actuality, the new shares appear in your account a couple of days later, not immediately when the distribution is declared).  In short, a distribution  from a mutual fund that is re-invested leads to no change in your net assets, but does increase your tax liability. Ditto for a distribution that is taken as cash or re-invested elsewhere. As a final remark, net capital losses inside a mutual fund are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the fund to be written off against future capital gains. See also this previous answer  or this one. "The topic you are apparently describing is ""safe withdrawal rates"", more here. Please, note that the asset allocation is crucial decision with your rates. If you continue to keep a lot in cash, you cannot withdraw too much money ""to live and to travel"" because the expected return from cash is too low in the long run. In contrast, if you moved to more sensible decision like 30% bonds and 70% world portfolio -- the rates will me a lot different. As you are 30 years old, you could pessimist suppose to live next 100 years -- then your possible withdrawal rates would be much lower than let say over 50 years. Anyway besides deciding asset allocation, you need to estimate the time over which you need your assets. You have currently 24% in liquid cash and 12% in bonds but wait you use the word ""variety of funds"" with about 150k USD, what are they? Do you have any short-term bonds or TIPS as inflation hedge? Do you miss small and value? What is your sector allocation between small-med-large and value-blend-growth? If you are risk-averse, you could add some value small. Read the site, it does much better job than any question-answer site can do (the link above)." Here would be the general steps to my mind for creating such a plan: Write out the final desired outcome. Is it $x in y years to fund your retirement? Is it $a in b years to put as a house down payment? This is the first step in defining how much money you want at what point in time. Consider what is your risk tolerance and how much time do you plan on spending in this plan. Is it rebalancing once a quarter and that's it or do you plan on doing monthly research and making tweaks all the time? This is slightly different from the first where one has to be mindful of how much volatility would one handle and what time commitment does one have for an investing strategy. Also, how much money would you be adding to the investments on what kind of time table would also be worth noting here. Construct the asset allocation based on the previous two steps along with historical returns averaged out to be a first draft of what you are buying in general. Is it US stocks? Is it a short-term bond fund? There are more than a few choices here that may make sense and it is worth considering based on the first couple of responses that determine what this will look like. Retirement in 40 years may be quite different than a house down payment in 2 years for example. Determine what brokerages or fund companies would offer such funds along with what types of accounts you'd want to have as in some countries there may be tax-advantaged accounts that may be useful to use here. This is where you're almost ready to start by doing the homework of figuring out how will things work. This may vary depending on one's jurisdiction. Get the applications from whatever institutions you'll be using and run with the desired asset allocation across various funds and accounts. Note that in the first few steps there were points of being aware of how much would you have, how aggressive are you investing and so forth. This is where you actually send in the money and get things rolling. Run with the plan and make tweaks as needed to achieve result, hopefully desired or better. This advice will be too specific, but... With the non-retirement funds, start by paying off the car loan if it's more than ~3% interest rate. The remainder: looks like a good emergency fund. If you don't have one of those yet, you do now. Store it in the best interest-bearing savings account you can find (probably accessible by online banking). If you wish to grow your emergency fund beyond $14-20,000 you might also consider some bonds, to boost your returns and add a little risk (but not nearly as much risk as stocks). With the Roth IRA - first of all, toss the precious metals. Precious metals are a crisis hedge and an advanced speculative instrument, not a beginner's investment strategy for 40% of the portfolio. You're either going to use this money for retirement, or your down payment fund. If it's retirement: you're 28; even with a kid on the way, you can afford to take risks in the retirement portfolio. Put it in either a targe-date fund or a series of index funds with an asset allocation suggested by an asset-allocation-suggestion calculator. You should probably have north of 80% stocks if it's money for retirement. If you're starting a down-payment fund, or want to save for something similar, or if you want to treat the IRA money like it's a down-payment fund, either use one of these Vanguard LifeStrategy funds or something that's structured to do the same sort of thing. I'm throwing Vanguard links at you because they have the funds with the low expense ratios. You can use Vanguard at your discretion if it's all an IRA (and not a 401(k)). Feel free to use an alternative, but watch the expense ratios lest they consume up to half your returns. Your plan sounds quite sound to me.  I think that between the choices of [$800 for Loans, $300 for Retirement] and [$1100 for loans], both are good choices and you aren't going to go wrong either way.   Some of the factors you might want to consider: I like your retirement savings choices - I myself use the admiral version of VOO, plus a slightly specialized but still large ETF that allows me to do a bit of shifting.  Having something that's at least a bit counter-market can be helpful for balancing (so something that will be going up some when the market overall is down some); I wouldn't necessarily do bonds at your age, but international markets are good for that, or a stock ETF that's more stable than the overall market.  If you're using Vanguard, look at the minimums for buying Admiral shares (usually a few grand) and aim to get those if possible, as they have significantly lower fees - though VOO seems to pretty much tie the admiral version (VFIAX) so in that case it may not matter so much. As far as the target retirement funds, you can certainly do those, but I prefer not to; they have somewhat higher (though for Vanguard not crazy high) expense ratios.  Realistically you can do the same yourself quite easily. Let's simplify things by assuming you only own 2 stocks. By owning VOO and VTI, you're overweight on large- and mid-cap stocks relative to the market composition. Likewise, by owning VTI and VT, you're overweight on U.S. stocks; conversely, by owning VXUS and VT, you're overweight on non-U.S. stocks. These are all perfectly fine positions to take if that's what you intend and have justification for. For example, if you're in the U.S., it may be a good idea to hold more U.S. stocks than VT because of currency risk. But 4 equity index ETFs is probably overcomplicating things. It is perfectly fine to hold only VTI and VXUS because these funds comprise thousands of stocks and thus give you sufficient diversification. I would recommend holding those 2 ETFs based on a domestic/international allocation that makes sense to you (Vanguard recommends 40% of your stock allocation to be international), and if for some reason you want to be overweight in large- and mid-cap companies, throw in VOO. You can use Morningstar X-Ray to look at your proposed portfolio and find your optimal mix of geographic and stock style allocation. "There are some good answers about the benefits of diversification, but I'm going to go into what is going on mathematically with what you are attempting. I was always under the assumption that as long as two securities are less than perfectly correlated (i.e. 1), that the standard deviation/risk would be less than if I had put 100% into either of the securities. While there does exist a minimum variance portfolio that is a combination of the two with lower vol than 100% of either individually, this portfolio is not necessarily the portfolio with highest utility under your metric.  Your metric includes returns not just volatility/variance so the different returns bias the result away from the min-vol portfolio. Using the utility function: E[x] - .5*A*sig^2 results in the highest utility of 100% VTSAX. So here the Sharpe ratio (risk adjusted return) of the U.S. portfolio is so much higher than the international portfolio over the period tracked that the loss of returns from adding more international stocks outweigh the lower risk that you would get from both just adding the lower vol international stocks and the diversification effects from having a correlation less than one. The key point in the above is ""over the period tracked"".  When you do this type of analysis you implicitly assume that the returns/risk observed in the past will be similar to the returns/risk in the future.   Certainly, if you had invested 100% in the U.S. recently you would have done better than investing in a mix of US/Intl.  However, while the risk and correlations of assets can be (somewhat) stable over time relative returns can vary wildly! This uncertainty of future returns is why most people use a diversified portfolio of assets.  What is the exact right amount is a very hard question though." "I don't think the advice to take lots more risk when young makes so much sense. The additional returns from loading up on stocks are overblown; and the rocky road from owning 75-100% stocks will almost certainly mess you up and make you lose money. Everyone thinks they're different, but none of us are. One big advantage of stocks over bonds is tax efficiency only if you buy index funds and don't ever sell them. But this does not matter in a retirement account, and outside a retirement account you can use tax-exempt bonds. Stocks have higher returns in theory but to have a reasonable guarantee of higher returns from them, you need around a 30-year horizon. That is a long, long time. Psychologically, a 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio, or something with similar risk mixing in a few more alternative assets like Swenson's, is SO MUCH better. With 100% stocks you can spend 10 or 15 years saving money and your investment returns may get you nowhere. Think what that does to your motivation to save. (And how much you save is way more important than what you invest in.) The same doesn't happen with a balanced portfolio. With a balanced portfolio you get reasonably steady progress. You can still have a down year, but you're a lot less likely to have a down decade or even a down few years. You save steadily and your balance goes up fairly steadily. The way humans really work, this is so important. For the same kind of reason, I think it's great to buy one fund that has both stocks and bonds in there. This forces you to view the thing as a whole instead of wrongly looking at the individual asset class ""buckets."" And it also means rebalancing will happen automatically, without having to remember to do it, which you won't. Or if you remember you won't do it when you should, because stocks are doing so well, or some other rationalization. Speaking of rebalancing, that's where a lot of the steady, predictable returns come from if you have a nice balanced portfolio. You can make money over time even if both asset classes end up going nowhere, as long as they bounce around somewhat independently, so you'll buy low and sell high when you rebalance. To me the ideal is an all-in-one fund that aims for about 60/40 stocks/bonds level of risk, somewhat more diversified than stocks/bonds is great (international stock, commodities, high yield, REIT, etc.). You can just buy that at age 20 and keep it until you retire. In beautiful ideal-world economic theory, buy 90% stocks when young. Real world with human brain involved: I love balanced funds. The steady gains are such a mental win. The ""target retirement"" funds are not a bad option, but if you buy the matching year for your age, I personally wish they had less in stocks. If you want to read more on the ""equity premium"" (how much more you make from owning stocks) here are a couple of posts on it from a blog I like: Update: I wrote this up more comprehensively on my blog,"