Where to put 100K

[FinanceDude]

Explin the "logic" behind that statement.  Is it some sort of immutable natural law?

brewer, you crack me up..................

 

[IHateCNBC]

Fundamentally the longer the term the higher the yield you should receive for your risk.

 

[brewer12345]

Fundamentally the longer the term the higher the yield you should receive for your risk.

Do you think your people will nominate Hillary for 2008?

 

[IHateCNBC]

Do you think your people will nominate Hillary for 2008?

Checkmated, huh?

 

[brewer12345]

Checkmated, huh?

Its more of a throwing up of hands. If that is about as far as your thoughts on the fundamentals go, I suggest you stick with Cramer and the charts.

 

[scrinch]

brewer12345, quit braying and explain your differing perspective.

 

[IHateCNBC]

I suggest you stick with Cramer and the charts.

That is an oxymoron. Cramer trades on fundamentals and believes charts are for fools.

 

[Nords]

Lemme interrupt this thread with an on-topic comment...

Sorry if this question is too broad.  I'll be receiving 100k in about a month and I'd like to put it in a place that's relatively safe, that's not a MM account.   I have money already in a Vanguard Wellsely account and so far I'm very happy.  I'm thinking STAR or Wellington are good funds too.  Any other good recommendations on Vanguard funds which have consistent growth with low to medium volatility?  

Time horizon = 5 years
Tax Status = married, adult children
Other investments = ~ 150K in 401K, ~70k in MM account, ~60k in Vanguard Wellsely account.  real estate holdings will be zero very soon.
Risk tolerance = Do not want to risk capital, so minimal tolerance. 

Generally that "minimal tolerance" phrase steers people to CDs & MMs.  Yet you're looking for a Vanguard growth fund which may or may not meet your volatility intentions.

What do you want for an asset allocation?  What about just adding to STAR or Wellesley?  If you didn't own them today, would you buy them?  Or are you trying to replace a real estate asset allocation with a REIT?

I'm not trying to steer anyone in a particular direction, but "Where to invest?" is as much an asset-allocation issue as it is a valuation question.

 

[brewer12345]

That is an oxymoron.  Cramer trades on fundamentals and believes charts are for fools. 

Cramer trades on whatever he pulls out of his ass.

 

[IHateCNBC]

It appears I stumbled on to this board in error. I will bow out now.

 

[cube_rat]

Play nice you guys!

 

[brewer12345]

It appears I stumbled on to this board in error.  I will bow out now.

Are you really that thin-skinned? Taking your ball and going home already?

Oh well.

 

[TromboneAl]

Taking your ball

Now you're getting personal.

 

[brewer12345]

Now you're getting personal.

Heheheheh...

Not really intending to do that all along, honestly. Maybe the sleep deprivation is getting to me.

 

[saluki9]

Heheheheh...

Not really intending to do that all along, honestly. Maybe the sleep deprivation is getting to me.

Brewer, in this case I intend to lead by example. As soon as somebody admits to being a technician, I exit out of the conversation. I have no desire to argue about witchcraft.

 

[brewer12345]

Brewer, in this case I intend to lead by example.  As soon as somebody admits to being a technician, I exit out of the conversation.  I have no desire to argue about witchcraft.

Heh, I doubt the wiccans would be amused. Lumping them in with the technicians is guilt by association.

 

[FinanceDude]

It appears I stumbled on to this board in error.  I will bow out now.

Well.............you have to be able to logically state your point, or they will eat you alive.............

 

[HFWR]

Our motto: Those of you who think you know it all annoy the hell out of us who really do...

 

[brewer12345]

Well.............you have to be able to logically state your point, or they will eat you alive.............

No, no, no. You don't have to explain anything. Just look at the red line on the chart; it explains everything!

 

[73ss454]

I don't claim to know much that's why I stay here. It also funny a hell reading this stuff.

 

[FinanceDude]

No, no, no.  You don't have to explain anything.  Just look at the red line on the chart; it explains everything! 

Reminds me of a guy I used to work with that was a technician...........he got people to pay 1% a year to stay in cash.................must have been a heck of a salesman.......

 

[IHateCNBC]

Funny the "guru" never answered the question.   

Consumer spending down and bond yields are rising.  Stick that in your fundamental pipe and smoke it.   

 

[brewer12345]

Funny the "guru" never answered the question.   

Consumer spending down and bond yields are rising.  Stick that in your fundamental pipe and smoke it.   

I'm still waiting for something other than a pretty picture that supports your statement that long yiekds must always be above short yields. I know they say a picture is worth a thousand words, but not in this case.

 

[shiny]

If you are not at admiral status already, you could bump your Wellesley up to the limit for that then put the rest in STAR.

 

[d]

I'm still waiting for something other than a pretty picture that supports your statement that long yiekds must always be above short yields.

"other things being equal" we would expect long yields to exceed short yields, due to, if from nothing else, increased uncertainty/risk with time ... but there are, at the extreme, two ways to getting there from here ... only one of which involves increasing longer term yields.