Asset Allocation
I've done a lot of reading and research in the last 24 hours, and I'm leaning towards either a 70/30 or 80/20 split, with a heavier emphasis on domestic stocks ('MURICA!). Can I go 75/25? Is that a thing? I like even quarters.
You can go with any number your heart desires.
You also can do any mix of US (large, mid, small) and international (established, emerging, frontier) that you like. Those categories I wrote in parentheses are "sub-asset classes", meaning they are the different slices you can use to make up your overall asset classes (stocks / bonds / cash).
Your sub-asset class mix, overall, is not nearly as important as your asset allocation (stocks / bonds / cash), though it does make a bit of a difference. Historically, smaller stocks and less established markets are riskier, and they will return more over time. They will also, correspondingly, lose more in bad years. Emerging / frontier markets lost between 40-60% in the last recession. However, average annual returns (over the long haul) of 9-15% in this category are completely common, so you do get a heck of a lot of mileage out of the additional risk - if you can live with it.
401(k)
Here's the details of where I have all my 401(k) money now. Everything from this provider is actively managed, so this is the lowest expense I can get away with, tracking most closely with the S&P 500 index (at least, according to them): https://www.voyaretirementplans.com/fundonepagerscolor/487.pdf
They also have small-cap/mid-cap/international/bond fund options. The one above is large cap. I'm not sure it really makes a difference, as long as my overall portfolio allocation works out?
See my above re: allocation vs. sub-allocation. It
does make a difference, it just makes much less of a difference. Once you nail your high level asset allocation, your time is usually better spent focusing on expenses / tax efficiency (as opposed to sub-allocation).
The fund you picked (Growth Fund of America) isn't an awful pick compared to the 80/20 allocation you mentioned, but so you know, this fund is quite a bit more aggressive. It's got an overall mix of about 92%+ equity, with 79% of the fund in US stocks and another 13% in foreign. The 0.98% expense ratio is bad compared to index funds, but actually pretty ok compared to plenty of other actively managed funds. I would just suggest you make sure you're OK with 90%+ equity (and no bonds - the non-equity portion of that fund is in cash). We can talk more about this IRL and I'll show you what I look at when I'm cobbling together a P/F in an account with limited choices, such as your 401(k).
Old 401(k)
My wife (NYCWife) really really wants to stay with her old 401(k) since it's performing so well, instead of moving it into an IRA. It's only costing her $12/quarter in fees (thanks, Vanguard), and has a good asset mix already, so I'm not left with a really good argument against sticking with it. Here's the details of the fund it uses: https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0696&FundIntExt=INT
That's a lifecycle fund, AKA a "set it and forget it" fund, or "age based" fund. The 2040 in the name means that this is for someone who's planning to retire around 2040. The fund starts off with an aggressive mix (it's currently 90% equity / 10% bonds, as shown
here) and it gets more conservative as you get older / closer to retirement. Typically about 10 years before the target date (2040), the fund starts adding more bonds and moving out of stocks, usually levelling out at 40-60% equities as you near retirement. It then keeps this mix indefinitely once you pass the target date (i.e., it assumes you retired "around" the year 2040, and that retirees are ok with 40-60% equities.
Lentils and I use lifecycle funds extensively - they're a fine choice, provided you understand the fund, the fees are low, and the current amount of stocks they hold approximates what you want.
Betterment/Vanguard
I already have both a Betterment account and a Vanguard account open. I'm a little fuzzy on the advantages of "tax loss harvesting", but I do know that Vanguard provides better account transaction history to Mint. Since we use Mint heavily to see how our finances are doing, I'm inclined to stick with Vanguard.
Of course, if we did go with Betterment, we could literally put both our IRAs and all our after-tax in there, and just go down to three providers for data. Also, joint account. HMMMM...
EDIT: Argh, Betterment won't allow for join accounts if you have an IRA. Well, it makes sense, because reasons, but still... argh.
IRAs are
Individual
Retirement
Accounts, so you can't normally have a joint one. That's not unique to Betterment - pretty much all providers will say the same. Just make sure you have your beneficiaries in order, in case something happens to one of you.
Re: Tax Loss Harvesting - this is a very real benefit, in my opinion, and probably the #1 reason that we personally use Betterment. Basically...
1) Betterment sells you out of investments that have lost money (either on a short or long-term basis). Because you lost money, you now have a capital loss.
2) Betterment almost-immediately buys a similar (but not identical) version of the investment you just sold. This is important: if they bought the
identical investment you just sold back, the IRS would THROW A YELLOW FLAG ON THE PLAY and disallow it. So you've gotta buy something similar (because you don't wanna mess up your asset allocation too much), but not identical (yellow flag from IRS, which is called a "wash sale").
3) This process repeats all year.
4) Your year-end tax statement shows that you sold stuff at a loss. Which you did! But - AHAHAHAHA! - you managed to stay invested all year, so you don't run the risk of missing out on market upswings when you realize your capital losses. This is helpful, because losses help you on your current year taxes and future year taxes.
How do capital losses help on your taxes? $3,000 of capital loss can be deducted against earned or other types of income in a given year. And if you get more than $3,000 of capital losses, you now have a SWEET TAX ASSET. Let's dream big and say you and NYCwife get $17,000 of long-term taxable losses in 2015. You can deduct $3,000 of capital losses from your income in 2015. Not too bad!
You can then "bank" the remaining $14,000 of losses and use them up in the future. You can either do this by using up $3,000 of capital losses each and every year until the remaining $14,000 is gone. Alternately, in years you have capital
gains, you can use your remaining $14,000 loss from 2015 (or whatever of the $14,000 loss remains) to offset those gains.
This part is important. You and NYCWife are going to have a
serious taxable portfolio, and you are going to pay
serious capital gains taxes on it in some years. You want them sweet sweet capital losses, because they will seriously reduce the tax drag on your portfolio.
OK, now that I've explained all that: Tax-loss harvesting is only a benefit realized in taxable accounts. Since retirement accounts aren't paying taxes as they grow, there's no point screwing around with your investments to try and tweak your taxable gains / losses each year. So Tax loss harvesting (either by hand, or via an automated service such as Betterment) is not needed in an IRA / 401(k) / etc. So while you might have other reasons to move your IRA to Betterment (such as convenience, which you mentioned), Tax-Loss harvesting wouldn't be one of them.