Anonymous wrote:I’d go 40% VT, 10% FSELX, 10% VITAX, 10% QICRX, 10% FPADX.

Dude, OP asked for a single fund lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With no SS, and therefore a "shortfall" of about $20k/yr on expected annual expenses, you might consider a very aggressive target-date fund that still has some (but not much) bond allocation.

For example, VSVNX (Vanguard's 2070 fund) is about 91% stock funds. That's a lot of risk/return, but not 100%.

The 2070 fund will gradually get more conservative with its balance, but it will always have more risk/return than a target-date fund that is closer to your actual retirement date. So you could probably just stay in VSVNX indefinitely, if you like that approach.

Interesting. Not OP. Some people say its not a good idea to have target funds in a taxable because of possible "surprising" tax liability triggered events. Or, perhaps do you think in OP's case since he is starting so late and unlikely to have huge sum of money any such tax event is unlikely to be a big hit?

It only matters IMO if you have $1M+ in a TDF within a taxable account. In that case frankly any tax bill as a result of rebalancing may be perhaps $5k. OP is unlikely to have $1M+ any time soon.

I’d go 40% VT, 10% FSELX, 10% VITAX, 10% QICRX, 10% FPADX.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With no SS, and therefore a "shortfall" of about $20k/yr on expected annual expenses, you might consider a very aggressive target-date fund that still has some (but not much) bond allocation.

For example, VSVNX (Vanguard's 2070 fund) is about 91% stock funds. That's a lot of risk/return, but not 100%.

The 2070 fund will gradually get more conservative with its balance, but it will always have more risk/return than a target-date fund that is closer to your actual retirement date. So you could probably just stay in VSVNX indefinitely, if you like that approach.

Interesting. Not OP. Some people say its not a good idea to have target funds in a taxable because of possible "surprising" tax liability triggered events. Or, perhaps do you think in OP's case since he is starting so late and unlikely to have huge sum of money any such tax event is unlikely to be a big hit?

I have heard this as well, but honestly I think its overblown. People take their tax optimization scheme to the extreme sometimes. Despite the fact they are less tax efficient, for people like OP a target date fund fits the bill perfectly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you get social security? That should get you to 80k.

OP. No unfortunately I won't be eligible for SS and that's why I started panicking. As of now, pension will be my only retirement income. Thankfully I have 15 years to have a little extra to add to it.

Why aren't you eligible for SS? Everyone is eligible for it because you pay for it. I have never heard of this. That's insane. Are you sure? Do they take SS from your paycheck??

Many municipal workers with government pensions in the US do not pay into SS and therefore are not entitled to SS when they retire. This is becoming less common, but there are still lots of people in this category.

+1. Never heard of this as well and just googled it. It apparently there a whopping 15 states where this is the case.

I honestly think they are still better off because they can invest whatever was going to go to SS themselves anyways.

And SS checks are not big for most people especially if you are single. If you are married 2 SS checks make a big difference though.

Anonymous wrote:With no SS, and therefore a "shortfall" of about $20k/yr on expected annual expenses, you might consider a very aggressive target-date fund that still has some (but not much) bond allocation.

For example, VSVNX (Vanguard's 2070 fund) is about 91% stock funds. That's a lot of risk/return, but not 100%.

The 2070 fund will gradually get more conservative with its balance, but it will always have more risk/return than a target-date fund that is closer to your actual retirement date. So you could probably just stay in VSVNX indefinitely, if you like that approach.

Interesting. Not OP. Some people say its not a good idea to have target funds in a taxable because of possible "surprising" tax liability triggered events. Or, perhaps do you think in OP's case since he is starting so late and unlikely to have huge sum of money any such tax event is unlikely to be a big hit?

OP, some of the answers above are good, but your question would be better for the Bogleheads forum than on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you get social security? That should get you to 80k.

OP. No unfortunately I won't be eligible for SS and that's why I started panicking. As of now, pension will be my only retirement income. Thankfully I have 15 years to have a little extra to add to it.

Why aren't you eligible for SS? Everyone is eligible for it because you pay for it. I have never heard of this. That's insane. Are you sure? Do they take SS from your paycheck??

Many municipal workers with government pensions in the US do not pay into SS and therefore are not entitled to SS when they retire. This is becoming less common, but there are still lots of people in this category.

With no SS, and therefore a "shortfall" of about $20k/yr on expected annual expenses, you might consider a very aggressive target-date fund that still has some (but not much) bond allocation.

For example, VSVNX (Vanguard's 2070 fund) is about 91% stock funds. That's a lot of risk/return, but not 100%.

The 2070 fund will gradually get more conservative with its balance, but it will always have more risk/return than a target-date fund that is closer to your actual retirement date. So you could probably just stay in VSVNX indefinitely, if you like that approach.

Anonymous wrote:In your case yes 100% VT in a taxable is the way to go because someone else is taking on the investing risk for you (Your Pension).

My dad just turned 95, I always wondered how much he would have needed in his 401k had he not had a pension.

I don't think people with a pension realize how lucky they are.

Its not to late to start a Roth at 45. Often people who have a job with a pension don't have high salaries so the fact that you have enough to save into a Roth and a taxable is really good.

I agree. Since you already have a guaranteed pension, go 100% exities in your investing accounts. The pension is gold!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you get social security? That should get you to 80k.

OP. No unfortunately I won't be eligible for SS and that's why I started panicking. As of now, pension will be my only retirement income. Thankfully I have 15 years to have a little extra to add to it.

Why aren't you eligible for SS? Everyone is eligible for it because you pay for it. I have never heard of this. That's insane. Are you sure? Do they take SS from your paycheck??

Anonymous wrote:Do you get social security? That should get you to 80k.

OP. No unfortunately I won't be eligible for SS and that's why I started panicking. As of now, pension will be my only retirement income. Thankfully I have 15 years to have a little extra to add to it.

Do you get social security? That should get you to 80k.

In your case yes 100% VT in a taxable is the way to go because someone else is taking on the investing risk for you (Your Pension).

My dad just turned 95, I always wondered how much he would have needed in his 401k had he not had a pension.

I don't think people with a pension realize how lucky they are.

Its not to late to start a Roth at 45. Often people who have a job with a pension don't have high salaries so the fact that you have enough to save into a Roth and a taxable is really good.

Would you go 100% VT after maxing out Roth if you have a pension and start investing at 45?

Unfortunately I am late in the game. I thought yay I have a pension I am set. Now, midlife crisis hits and I am reviewing my readiness. My annual salary is $110k and I will have a pension of $60k with COLA when I retire at 62.

My goal is to have $80k/year. So I will need to generate an extra $20k/year from Roth and Taxable. I may not get there since I am starting so late but even if get an extra $10k/year I will take it.

If you were starting at 45 after maximizing your Roth, would you go 100% VT?

If not, please suggest ONE single fund in a taxable account? I don't want 2 funds. I want to keep it simple in the taxable account. I want just a single fund and start making monthly automatic transfer into it until I am 62. Thanks so much.