nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Brokerage account - one fund?

gawws

In setting up a brokerage account, Quicken asks if I want one account per fund or all funds in one account, yet it provides no direction or advantages/disadvantages. Is there a link with this information?

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

All comments

Sherlock

If you haven't already, I suggest you review the guidance provided in the built-in Help documentation: press F1

Ps56k2

Also.... which Brokerage ?

Sometimes you can tell by looking at your statement, and seeing if there is one overall account number for ALL your mutual fund holdings,
OR - the brokerage creates an account number for each mutual fund holding.

gawws

Thanks all. I was really looking for some empirical thoughts. If one were to have multiple funds or multiple single issue equities or bonds, it would add a significant number of accounts. I just don't see a benefit to one fund per account unless I am missing something.

q_lurker

Empirical thought: I much prefer the multi-fund/account setup. A primary reason becomes my Quicken management as I diversify holdings or change holdings either for better management or reduced fees.

If you have one-fund per account, every such change to to new fund requires a new account. If your happy with the fund and it changes you from Class Expensive to Class Cheaper == new account.

I've probably owned more than 50 funds over my Quicken life in various family accounts (personal investments, IRAs, 401ks, etc.) - maybe 8-10 accounts total. If I had to have one account for each fund in each of those family accounts, it would have been a nightmare.

If the financial institution does require one fund per account, I believe there are some tricks to apply for fund class changes and the like that can ease the burden.

Sherlock

Empirical thought: The only reason to use a single mutual fund account is if the financial institution requires it. Most don't. Personally, I would probably change institutions.

NotACPA

Further note that if you set up an account a being a "Single Mutual Fund" account ... the account can ONLY hold that ONE fund ... EVER.

So, in @q_lurker's example, he'd have to have 50 different accounts ... most of which are now unused.

Ps56k2

I have investments with .... Schwab, Fidelity, TRowe, Vanguard

TRowe is the only one that has, at least for me, the 1-1 Single Fund per Acct.

q_lurker

NotACPA said:

Further note that if you set up an account a being a "Single Mutual Fund" account ... the account can ONLY hold that ONE fund ... EVER.
So, in @q_lurker's example, he'd have to have 50 different accounts ... most of which are now unused.

Not to belabor the point, but it would actually be more than 50 accounts -- since the same fund might be held in His IRA, Her IRA, His Invest, Her Invest, etc. I could imagine it growing to 250 accounts if those were all 1-fund/1-account setups. Not going to happen in my file.

To the other side of the coin, when a fund family like American requires the 1-fund to 1-account setup, that does not absolutely require the SMF Quicken setup. That is, if the investor moves all of Fund A over to Fund B, I see no problem if the user does that in a standard account (a non-SMF account), and simply disables the connectivity of that Quicken account to American's Fund A and re-enables the connectivity of the Quicken account to American's Fund B. That is, American is really saying they are going to send one fund data to one Quicken account. I don't believe they have or exercise the means to confirm that said Quicken account is structurally an SMF account. That still biases the setup the OP asked about away from a SMF designation.

gawws

Thanks all. This is my first time posting on this forum and I am impressed with the response speed and content.