5 Fidelity Stock Funds For Your 401(k)
Fidelity is the largest 401(k) provider in the U.S. The asset manager oversees $1.4 trillion in 401(k) assets for more than 24 million retirement savers. That means if your employer offers a Fidelity 401(k), you're in good company.
Your 401(k) investing strategy may involve a mix of stock and bond positions—hopefully according to a strategic asset allocation plan. If you don't have allocation targets, see some easy advice here.
Once you set your 401(k) strategy, the next step is choosing which funds will fulfill that strategy. The five funds introduced below can step into your 401(k) portfolio as core stock holdings.
Core stock holdings for a 401(k) should be broad-based in scope and low-cost. Usually, their goal is to capture market-level returns without excessive risk or fees. These screening parameters were used to identify Fidelity funds meeting those qualifications:
Beta is a measure of volatility relative to the overall market. A beta of 1 or less indicates the fund is no more volatile than the market, as measured by an index like the S&P 500. The S&P 500 is a group of large, successful companies that represents about 80% of U.S. stocks in terms of market value.
The following five Fidelity funds have broad market exposure and low expense ratios. A closer review of each fund follows.
These funds have overlapping portfolios, so plan on choosing just one to function as your core 401(k) stock position. If you don't have access to them in your Fidelity 401(k), try swapping in something similar—such as any low-fee S&P 500 fund. You could also ask your fund administrator to include one or two of these low-priced stock funds on your investment menu.
FSPGX by the numbers:
FSPGX tracks the Russell 1000 Growth index, which includes U.S. companies worth more than $10 billion that are positioned to deliver strong capital gains. The index selection factors include:
The fund's portfolio is heavily weighted towards technology companies at 46%. Consumer discretionary companies and communication stocks comprise 15% and 13%, respectively.
FSPGX is appropriate for younger and risk-tolerant investors who are prepared to keep this fund for the long term. In shorter periods, growth portfolios can be volatile, which increases the risk of loss.
FNILX by the numbers:
Fidelity Zero Large Cap Index Fund invests in roughly 500 large-cap domestic companies and offers an unbeatable expense ratio of 0.00%. The fund's portfolio is similar to the S&P 500, so it delivers market-level returns with no dilution from expenses.
FNILX offers more distributed industry exposure, with technology accounting for 30% of the portfolio. Financial and health care are also well represented, at 15% and 11%, respectively.
FNILX is a good pick for S&P 500 investors who'd rather skip the fees. Fees are always a consideration when investing, but they can be particularly problematic within 401(k)s. Depending on your employer and the size of the 401(k), you might have hefty account fees on top of fund-related fees.
Also, investors using FNILX as a core holding should have a timeline of five to 10 years or more. Those with less time can still invest in this fund but should hold it in smaller quantities. Bond funds and cash should take priority for short investing horizons.
FXAIX by the numbers:
FXAIX is a traditional S&P 500 index fund. The portfolio is similar to the zero-fee fund above, but with slightly different weightings. Apple, Microsoft and Nvidia are the top three holdings and each are weighted between 5.6% and 6.75%.
This fund has a Morningstar rating of five stars, meaning it performs in the top 10% among its peer group. That's an accomplishment because there are more than 1,200 funds in Morningstar's "large blend" category. Lipper reports that FXAIX is a top-five performer in S&P 500 index funds for the one-, five- and 10-year periods.
A low-cost S&P 500 index fund like FXAIX is a solid choice for many 401(k) savers. Historically, the S&P 500 has produced average annual returns near 7% after inflation. That beats cash and outpaces many low-risk debt securities, even when interest rates are high.
The caveat is that the index won't increase 7% every year. In some years, the return could be 20% or more. In other years, the return can be negative. The trick is to stay invested since these ups and downs average out to growth over time.
FSKAX by the numbers:
Fidelity Total Market Index fund tracks the aggregate returns of the Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index. The index includes all U.S. exchange-traded companies, regardless of size.
In other words, FSKAX provides exposure to smaller companies alongside the big ones. The index and fund are market-cap weighted so that larger businesses have greater influence over the group. But small and mid-cap stocks are still present and provide nice diversification.
FSKAX is suitable for investors who want the broadest coverage of U.S. equities or slightly lower concentrations in big tech stocks like Apple, Microsoft and Nvidia.
FNCMX by the numbers:
FNCMX replicates the returns of the Nasdaq Composite Index, which includes more than 3,000 stocks listed on the Nasdaq exchange. The index is heavily concentration in technology.
The fund uses sampling to reproduce index returns, rather than investing in every index constituent. Even so, FNCMX's portfolio includes more than 2,600 positions. The two top holdings, Apple and Microsoft, represent 11% and 10% of the portfolio, respectively.
Technology has driven much of the stock market's growth in recent years, with Nasdaq-listed companies leading the charge. Investors who believe the trend will continue should enjoy owning FNCMX. Historically, the fund's returns are similar to other funds on this list, but that could change if technology continues to reshape the way business is done.
As with any growth-oriented equity fund, FNCMX is best held in a quantity that reflects your risk tolerance and timeline.
These five Fidelity stock funds offer long-term growth potential to build your 401(k) retirement savings. You can hold any one of them alongside smaller positions in money market and bond funds for a simple portfolio that builds wealth over time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
35 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump, Xi Have Crossed Wires on Rare Earths, Trade Expert Says
The US and China appear to have different understandings of what was agreed on rare earths at last month's trade talks in Geneva, according to an expert on critical minerals policy. China's exports of the materials used in critical technology from fighter jets to smartphones have become a major flashpoint between the world's top economies, with US officials alleging Beijing hasn't honored a commitment to resume shipments. A supply shortfall has already affected some American companies.
CBS News
39 minutes ago
- CBS News
LA County union workers arrested after interrupting Board of Supervisors meeting
Tensions over a recent contract battle between Los Angeles County and its workers spilled over at Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting. Several members of the Service Employees International Union, which represents the employees, were arrested when they refused to leave. "We're trying to send a message to the LA County Board of Supervisors," SEIU member Raymond Meza said. In late April, union workers staged a walkout that lasted several days. While talks have progressed since then, union leaders claim county officials are asking for unfair provisions. "The main sticking point is that the county wants to put in poison pills such as negotiating wages with us but having the unilateral ability to take it away," Meza said. "What is the point of doing this negotiation process if they can just undermine it whenever they want." The county said it's offering workers a fair deal that includes a $5,000 bonus, an additional bonus and cost-of-living adjustments. Supervisors said the county is going through one of the worst financial crises because of billions of dollars in sexual assault claims, the recent wildfires and the uncertain economic outlook. Union leaders said even with this offer the county is not bargaining in good faith. "After over 60 days without a contract, we want this settled now," Meza said.
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
Sarah Spain on the future of sports media and women's leagues
Professional sports is big business—and the stakes have never been higher. Sarah Spain, host of the podcast Good Game With Sarah Spain, longtime ESPN personality, and sports journalist, unpacks what those stakes mean for the leagues, teams, companies, and players involved. From the WNBA's breakthrough to the future of ESPN's streaming to the looming legal settlement that could transform college athletics, sports business is at a crossroads. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by the former editor-in-chief of Fast Company Bob Safian. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today's top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. As women's pro sports become more successful, do you worry that it's going to take on some of the toxic qualities of men's pro sports, more aggressive media conversations, bad behavior off the court or off the field? How much is that a looming question that these women's leagues have to sort of grapple with or maybe redefine? Very much. And actually, we saw it last year with Caitlin Clark's entry into the [WNBA]. It was awesome that more people were watching and more people were interested. It also meant talking heads who didn't know the game, weren't watching the games, and certainly didn't understand the intersectionality of women's sports, and how it intersects with race, sexuality, homophobia, misogyny, all those things. And they created damaging and toxic conversations that were actually dangerous to players. There were multiple incidents of players' addresses being sent, and [notes saying] 'I'm going to find you.' Or people showing up in the places the players were and players feeling like they were endangered. Breanna Stewart's wife actually got threats. So I think the attention is great, the investment is great, but what comes with that is an expectation that we'll suddenly turn women's sports into the same as men's. And there's a real gift in it not being the same. There's a real joy in the space feeling different than men's. And I named my show Good Game With Sarah Spain, because originally I wanted to name it The Good Place With Sarah Spain. But that's a TV show, and it would be hard for people to distinguish and find when they looked for it online. But that's how I feel about going to a women's professional sporting event. It's the good place. It is incredibly diverse. It is incredibly kind. Everyone's rooting for their team, and they're very competitive, but there's no fistfights. People aren't getting hammered and falling down the stands on each other. I think that with the NWSL [National Women's Soccer League], for instance, when they had the recent forced purchases of a couple teams due to the toxicity I mentioned, they had a new rule where the majority owner needed to be financially liable as one person. There could be a group of owners, but they required that one owner bear the financial burden, if necessary, and that person had to be a billionaire. That meant that these large groups of women, who have a lot of money but aren't billionaires, were shut out. And it inevitably meant that once again, we were returning to ownership groups where it was going to be most likely a middle-aged white guy that owned it. And that's fine if that person is really dedicated to women's sports, and wants to learn the space and understand everything about it. It's a little tougher if it's another plaything that they have with four other teams, and they don't feel as connected to the space. And, again, #notallmen. But what the problem with the previous iteration of the NWSL was how many owners and coaches it turned out were engaging in toxic or abusive behavior, or at the very least, covering up for each other, sending a coach on his way: 'Thank you for your service.' Nice long letter: 'Thanks for your time here.' While knowing that they were letting them go because of abusive behavior, and letting them get hired somewhere else. And that's not to say that women won't do that and never do that, but there is a belief that you've got to have more women at the highest levels to help prevent those kind of situations, and that kind of atmosphere and culture, from taking over again. Right. I just feel like we're about to enter another HBO Max, Max, HBO, Max, ouroboros kind of situation here. But it feels inevitable. Obviously, during the massive shift away from traditional cable, and the unbundling, where ESPN no longer got $13, or whatever it was, from every human in America who had cable. What a great deal for ESPN, because not all of them were watching ESPN, right? But also, for cable, ESPN was a huge reason that people wanted to buy it. So it was a great partnership for a long time. That goes away, and it becomes quite clear that ESPN needs to try to keep up with the digital side of things, and needs to have a streaming direct-to-consumer service, because people aren't just going with cable anymore. I think for a while, folks who appreciate the television side will still get an approximation of what it used to be. But you're already seeing ESPN2 used to be an incubator for new shows, and creativity, and new talent, and now it's mostly reruns. You're seeing shows like Around the Horn, and others, that are shoulder programming for the live shows, that will start to go away. Because on streaming you don't need to fill a specific amount of time. You just create whatever amount of content you want to have. So they'll start focusing on rights, pre- and post-show Sports Center, and I would say a couple big-property studio shows. But I think those are going to go away more and more. And I think if you also look at ESPN's decision-making around more influencer-type and former-athlete-type content, as opposed to journalistic content, that is unfortunate reacting to the world's, I guess, demands, and the speed and desires of the current younger consumer. But I do worry about how that impacts ESPN's position in the industry. Because what separates them from everyone else is that they're the 'worldwide leader.' If it's on ESPN, it's right, it's accurate, it's vetted, it's journalistically sound. When you've got a Pat McAfee, whose show is produced elsewhere and dropped onto ESPN airwaves, and they wash their hands of the production and creation side of it, and they tell you it's a little bit different—but the viewer doesn't know that. So when he goes on and says things that are factually incorrect, does stories that are—for instance, one he's now being sued for libel—essentially, that aren't vetted, and aren't sourced before he takes them in front of millions. That, I think, impacts how people view everything else on the network, even if it's just subconsciously. When they turn it on, do they still think everything Adam Schefter says is journalistically sound? Or does the fact that Pat McAfee is on the same network. Or Stephen A. Smith, who will say, 'Oh, I can't talk about Dana White hitting his wife on camera; he's a close personal friend of mine.' That's not how journalism works, right? And so when that starts to blur the lines, does the rest of what's coming out on that network get harmed by it? And does it then prevent them from being separated from the pack in a way that they used to be? I don't know. I'm not in charge. It's above my pay grade. From my point of view, yes, and that concerns me. But also, I get that everyone's trying to get the younger consumer, and they seem to like a screaming head influencer or former athlete more than they like someone who knows how to do journalism.
