Fidelity to Vanguard Roth IRA

>>1728957

Can you do that without a tax penalty?

>>1728960
i dont know D:

File: 1477373794872.jpg (34KB, 500x362px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x362px

>>1728957
come on boys! what do you think? Im almost 32 and stupid as hell

>>1728957
>shirt

Why bother?

>>1728957
>Should I move my Roth IRA from Fidelity to Vanguard if I plan on selling my Fidelity mutual funds to buy two Vanguard index funds anyway?
These days, Fidelity and Vanguard are pretty much on par for low-cost long-term investors (along with Schwab). But if you're going to commit to Vanguard funds anyway, you might as well house them at Vanguard. It'll be easier to do fund management tasks, Admiral conversions, and add additional funds should you decide to tweak your allocations. There's no downside to Vanguard versus Fidelity (I'd actually argue its ever-so-slightly better) and no cost to move it, so why not.

>>1728960
>Can you do that without a tax penalty?
Yes, as long as you do it as a custodian-to-custodian transfer. Just follow the procedures on the Vanguard website or call their roll-over department and Vanguard will handle all the details.

https://investor.vanguard.com/account-transfer/transfer-ira

If for some reason you accidentally withdrew the Roth in cash, you're not screwed as long as you get it back into a new Roth within 30 days IIRC.

No, keep the account at Fidelity, sell the Fidelity funds and buy the Vanguard index funds. No point in transferring and Fidelity would probably charge you $75 to close the account. Nothing to gain unless you like the Vanguard website for account access better than the Fidelity one.

>>1731289

This kind of got me thinking, all of the major players are about the same for fees now, so would it make logical sense to diversify your investments, not through funds, but through brokerages?

>>1731314
>This kind of got me thinking, all of the major players are about the same for fees now, so would it make logical sense to diversify your investments, not through funds, but through brokerages?
It's a fair question, and one that I've thought about a lot. I have a *lot* of money at Vanguard and I sometime wonder "what if" something went wrong there. So I've looked into it.

Turns out its really not a major risk. Mutual funds and ETFs are subject to an amazingly high degree of regulation, oversight, and reporting -- much more than bank accounts, financial managers, hedge funds, and brokerages.

The biggest protection is that mutual funds cannot be taken by creditors of the fund family. So if Vanguard got in legal trouble and lost a massive verdict, they could never dip into the funds to pay it off. It's completely fire-walled and protected. Similar protections do exist for brokerages, but lets be honest here: brokerages are much more likely to be sued than mutual fund families because brokerages engage in a much broader range of financial transactions. And good luck if your money is with some financial advisor or hedge fund and they get sued.

Lastly, the reason why I say Vanguard is ever-so-slightly better than Fidelity or Schwab is that Vanguard is investor-owned. The funds actually own the parent company Vanguard. As a consequence, Vanguard the parent company has zero incentive to either (a) jack up fees to boost profits, or (b) steal or misappropriate money from the funds, because the funds own Vanguard and the investors own the funds. Any profits made by Vanguard -- legal or even shady -- get funneled right back to the funds (and therefore the investors) anyway.

>>1731314
I do this, hold near-identical competing funds from both
I also like Fidelity because there is a brick-and-mortar branch nearby while the dude on Vanguard customer support had a pajeet accent

>>1731810
>the dude on Vanguard customer support had a pajeet accent
Vanguard doesn't use foreign customer service representatives, as your misleading post implies. They do have a call center for low-level customer support (as does Fidelity & Schwab), but its located in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania and hires American workers. Now some Americans do have accents, so I won't call you a liar outright. But the implication you were trying to make is clearly false.

>>1732859
>what is sub-contracting

>>1732935
>what is sub-contracting
Its the process of hiring third-party labor by contract to perform services. Something that Vanguard does not do. Which you would know if you bothered to research or read their Glassdoor profile and comments.

Stop being stupid, kay?