Best Vanguard one fund for target FIRE in 2030? VASGX, Target Date 20XX, other?

[tpac]

My spouse and I have been saving 50-70% of our after tax income into our solo 401k's for the past 8 years. I'm currently 41 and my spouse is 44 and we're aiming for FIRE in 2030 at 47 / 50. If we want to stick to a single Vanguard fund solution which fund would you you recommend and why?

As far as I understand it the shortlist is VSCGX Lifestrategy Conservative Growth (60/40), VTHRX Target 2030 (60/40), VTTHX Target 2035 (70/30), VFORX Target 2040 (75/25), VASGX Lifestrategy Growth (80/20) or VTIVX Target 2045 (85/15). The primary differences are that Lifestrategy funds keep their allocation over time and the Target date funds offer a wider variety of allocation options, lower expense ratios and become more conservative over time.

For what it's worth we've held entirely either VASGX or VFORX for most of our FIRE savings journey. Then last year global instability gave us cold feet about the 80/20 allocation and we switched to Target 2030 for the more conservative 60/40 allocation with the intention to revisit this again a year later (which is now).

[cincystache]

Great job on the savings rate! When you retire at age 47/50, how many years of expenses do you plan to have saved? I would pick a stock allocation you can stick with regardless of market conditions. I'd probably do 70/30 if 80/20 was too much.

[tpac]

Great job on the savings rate! When you retire at age 47/50, how many years of expenses do you plan to have saved? I would pick a stock allocation you can stick with regardless of market conditions. I'd probably do 70/30 if 80/20 was too much.

Targeting roughly 1.25 M at FIRE / 25x 50k yearly expenses. Our savings target and annual expense projections aren't rigid so we're primarily focused on increasing earnings / boosting savings rate. It's like if we hit our savings goal before our target retirement age we'd keep saving until that time arrived. It's similarly likely that if we failed to hit our savings goal by the time our target retirement age rolled around we'd find ways to revise our yearly expense target down.

We're very flexible in that we have no kids, have no intention to own real estate, and are open to living more or less anywhere globally. When we get closer to FIRE we'll be looking for best value locations at different yearly expense price points and may revise our yearly expense target up or down depending on what sticks out as offering the best balance of cost of living and quality of life. Historically the best "value" for us has been living frugally and car free in more expensive COL states / metro areas / countries with better transit, infrastructure, environmental quality and healthcare access. So we'll likely end up somewhere in Scandinavia, Western Europe (excluding UK), Spain, East Asia, or the US (Northeast Corridor or Southern California).

[FLBiker]

Of those options, I'd do VASGX.  I don't like the date based ones, because the allocation will change over time in a way that doesn't appeal to me -- I don't want more bonds as I get older.

[tpac]

Of those options, I'd do VASGX.  I don't like the date based ones, because the allocation will change over time in a way that doesn't appeal to me -- I don't want more bonds as I get older.

Agreed - I'm inclined to switch back to VASGX as my one fund.

I'm ok with giving up the allocation flexibility and extra .06% expense ratio vs the target date funds. Also, being roughly halfway through our investment period I could (1) convert our current VTHRX holdings (60/40) to VASGX (80/20) then just buy VSCGX (60/40) from now on to eventually end up with an allocation in the 75/25 range or (2) convert our current VTHRX holdings (60/40) to VASGX (80/20) then revisit this allocation yearly and blend with VSCGX as desired.

I like that the target date funds offer a wider variety of allocation options and lower expense ratios, but agree that their allocations get way too conservative over time - dropping to 40/60 around the target date and eventually shifting to an even more conservative 30/70 when they eventually get merged into the Vanguard Target Retirement Income Fund (like target 2015 etc. have). On an unrelated note Lifestrategy Income is even more conservative in its allocation at 20/80.

So the primary frustration with the Lifestrategy funds is the need to hold two funds to hit a number of common allocations, which somewhat undermines their utility as a go to all-in-one fund *if* you prefer an allocation they don't offer. For example having to hold a blend of VASGX and VSCGX to hit 70/30 or 75/25 would be annoying.