On Mar 22, 3:15 am, "Jane" <googlemail2...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

I am 72 and have had my IRA funds in Vanguard's Wellesley Fund for
over 10 years. I have been more than pleased with the returns and
stability of this fund. I moved from Wellington into Wellesley for no
reason other than I liked the Wellesley profile.

On Mar 21, 3:15 pm, "Jane" <googlemail2...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

Just a clarification. Is that return before or after you withdraw
income from the fund?

A pure bond fund should return 4-5% pa, if it is invested in high
quality bonds. However, there will be no growth in income or capital
from such a fund.

After 30 years, at 2.5% inflation, that money (and that income) will
be worth less than half of what it is now (about 47%). Inflation of
many senior costs (health care, nursing homes, travel etc.) tends to
run ahead of reported inflation (CPI).

I also am not a person who actively manages her
- quote -

No actually that is a pretty good strategy for most folks. That is
the whole point of funds.

On Mar 21, 11:15 am, "Jane" <googlemail2...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

Wellesley is a 640-60 type equity bond mix.
Wellington appears to be a 60-40 type mix too

IMO, you are low on "equity position" in other portfolio, and should
use Wellington fund. You have risk that you could run out of money in
20 or 30 years, and I think Wellington hedges against that risk better.

"Jane" <googlemail2003[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174480957.278553.189440[at]n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

- quote -

Until recently, the question was a no-brainer because Wellington was closed
to new investors :-)

However, it's been reopened, so the question is legitimate again.

I'm not an expert in this stuff, but it seems to me that Wellesley is aimed
at providing income that appreciates over time, and Wellington is more aimed
at capital growth. This distinction is unimportant if you're in an IRA, but
if it is a taxable investment, you would have to pay taxes immediately on
the income, which would be a disadvantage if you were planning to reinvest
it rather than spend it.

In an IRA, it seems that Wellington has done somewhat better over the past
1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods. This is not surprising, as Wellesley is
about 60% bonds and Wellington is about 65% stocks. In exchange for that,
Wellesley has been significantly less volatile, especially during the
2000-2002 bear market.

As they say, ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choice.

I thought I'd start a new post here. My last one has gotten rather
complex.

To recap: I have about $350 in a 401K from an old employer. It's all
in a John Hancock fixed income account. I want to roll it into an IRA
account.

I am retired. I am 62. I don't need income from my investments now
but I don't know when I will. I also have several other investments.
Most are in Vanguard Wellington. Some in S&P and Bond index funds
with Vanguard and the rest in I bonds and IRA CDs. I also have some
company stock that I will be selling and reinvesting with the $350.

I am a VERY conservative investor and am not looking for big returns.
I think 5% a year would be just fine for me to live on. Even 4% would
probably by OK. I also am not a person who actively manages her
funds. I tend to put it somewhere and leave it there. Not good
perhaps, but I might as well be honest.

I was considering the Wellington fund for my $350 but now I see that
the Wellesley fund has better overall performance. It also seems to
be more conservative with about twice as much in bonds.

Would it be reasonable to put my money into Wellesley or is Wellington
a better choice?

Thanks