User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/1/2018 11:18:58 PM EDT
[#1]
Cash for later
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2018 11:19:56 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are correct reading is fundamental this is your words I clearly stated that Fidelity only follows buy and hold asset allocation. They don't model anything looking forward. He was on your ass because you filled out the risk tolerance questionnaire and your allocation isn't matching it right now. Then you went on about how every one sucks with modeling and you strategy is great. My advisor has never called me before when my asset allocation varies from my target. He knows I buy and sell RE and that my balance and allocation can vary a lot over a short period of time. Once again, for your clarification, he's never made a call like that before. The timing was odd. Given where we are in the market cycle, it might, or might not, have something to do with Fidelity offering no-cost stock funds. Time will tell. Jeez, dude, talk about argumentative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2018 11:31:03 PM EDT
[#3]
Good for Fidelity, they are gathering assets and helping the small investor as well as smart investors. Financial Advisors with $50MM UM don't have the time to service accounts under $500K.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 1:11:02 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Standing by for Vanguard to reciprocate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 1:15:48 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why or when what? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: You always here the talking points but never any fundamental reason as to why or when. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 1:28:40 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good for Fidelity, they are gathering assets and helping the small investor as well as smart investors. Financial Advisors with $50MM UM don't have the time to service accounts under $500K. It’s not that their products or service are any different for “small” investors, but they do have some perks (free commissions, financial planning, estate planning, etc.) for high(er) net worth investors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 1:31:40 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll stay with Vanguard and let them to continue to bet me out of 4 basis points. Good for Fidelity though. I am sure others will follow. Vangurd was the first with very low fees. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 1:35:47 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
John Bogle is a genius! Vangurd was the first with very low fees. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'll stay with Vanguard and let them to continue to bet me out of 4 basis points. Good for Fidelity though. I am sure others will follow. Vangurd was the first with very low fees. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 1:59:00 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd guess the fee probably doesn't get enough attention from most people. In your $100 example, sure, who cares? But what if you make that $100,000? Assuming your math is right you'd have a difference of $2500 in a single year, and hopefully over time we're all working with a lot bigger numbers than $100k. I get that you're talking managed funds and not this free S&P index deal, but those fees are still an enormous factor whichever way you go. Especially when you've got a 45 basis points fee against a 15 basis points fee and the two funds perform pretty much the same over a 30 year period as I think these things tend to do. I'm not at my work computer to run the math on an example but it's a huge difference over time when you're talking about hundreds of thousands or millions of invested dollars. Plus you've got to figure up the compounding value of the fee difference beginning year 1, in addition to the straight yearly difference, i.e. that $2500 difference in year 1 is actually worth over $10,000 in 30 years at 5% annual interest. That kind of difference gets you well into 6-figure territory over the course of a 30-40 year career. My only point is it's definitely worthwhile to research funds and stay on top of our fees, and make sure we understand exactly the costs, and tradeoffs, we're making with high-fee funds. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Total noob here, would this just be free free stock trades? Is this worth opening an account? Stock trades in most cases have a fee on fidelity. This is a mutual fund (not a stock, a bundle of stocks) you can transfer money in to (for free), and it has no upkeep charge (free). So in theory all your money stays your money. It is like having a savings account that is made up of stocks. It sounds better than having an old fashioned savings account in every way except it could lose value. I'll have to see if my 401k with them picks that up as an investment option. EDIT: I do think the management fee gets a bit too much attention. I have one account with a management fee of .45% that earned 16%, and I have another account that has a .015% management fee that earned 12%. If I had $100 in each, I'd have 116 and 112 before the fee, and 115.5 and 111.98 after the fee if I'm doing my math right here. The large issue is that nobody can tell you whether the fund with the higher fee will actually have better results or not: statistically it won't perform any better, so the numerically sensible choice is to pick the one with the lowest fee. But statistics are one of the three kinds of lies. . . My only point is it's definitely worthwhile to research funds and stay on top of our fees, and make sure we understand exactly the costs, and tradeoffs, we're making with high-fee funds. Not that I disagree with you in principle, but using your example of 45 vs 15 basis points. Reduced by 30% tax savings. We’re talking .09% difference. (Assuming you’re already over 2% AGI). I’m not making major life choices over 9 basis points. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 4:47:16 AM EDT
[#10]
If you really want to avoid fees construct your own ETF out of individual stocks: commission in (if your broker charges commissions) and hold.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 4:49:52 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No fees? What are they trying to get out of this? Simply stealing clients away from other firms? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 6:50:32 AM EDT
[#12]
This Fidelity move did create quite an opportunity...BLK was down 4.6% yesterday.
If it goes any lower (limit order) I’m buying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 7:14:18 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll stick with my old, water-stained mattress, thanks. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 7:16:48 AM EDT
[#14]
I don't know about any of this. The idea here is that you can get 12% return by putting your money here versus the 1-2% the bank gives you? The downside being there is risk on losing that money?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 7:56:09 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You left itemized deductions out of your napkin WACC calc, hoss. Not that I disagree with you in principle, but using your example of 45 vs 15 basis points. Reduced by 30% tax savings. We're talking .09% difference. (Assuming you're already over 2% AGI). I'm not making major life choices over 9 basis points. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Total noob here, would this just be free free stock trades? Is this worth opening an account? Stock trades in most cases have a fee on fidelity. This is a mutual fund (not a stock, a bundle of stocks) you can transfer money in to (for free), and it has no upkeep charge (free). So in theory all your money stays your money. It is like having a savings account that is made up of stocks. It sounds better than having an old fashioned savings account in every way except it could lose value. I'll have to see if my 401k with them picks that up as an investment option. EDIT: I do think the management fee gets a bit too much attention. I have one account with a management fee of .45% that earned 16%, and I have another account that has a .015% management fee that earned 12%. If I had $100 in each, I'd have 116 and 112 before the fee, and 115.5 and 111.98 after the fee if I'm doing my math right here. The large issue is that nobody can tell you whether the fund with the higher fee will actually have better results or not: statistically it won't perform any better, so the numerically sensible choice is to pick the one with the lowest fee. But statistics are one of the three kinds of lies. . . My only point is it's definitely worthwhile to research funds and stay on top of our fees, and make sure we understand exactly the costs, and tradeoffs, we're making with high-fee funds. Not that I disagree with you in principle, but using your example of 45 vs 15 basis points. Reduced by 30% tax savings. We're talking .09% difference. (Assuming you're already over 2% AGI). I'm not making major life choices over 9 basis points. 9 basis points..I guess. I'd actually still think about it depending on a couple factors, but you might be right  I was just using the previous posters 15 and 45 numbers (BTW now I see I actually misunderstood his post), but what about when that spread is 100 basis points right? 15 or whatever on an index fund and 120 points on an actively managed. The numbers do get yuge over time even if you can deduct part of that fee.
Sounds like you get it, probably more than I do. I think a lot of people never even consider the fees though, at least that's what I've experienced at work when I talk to younger employees and coworkers about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 8:20:28 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know about any of this. The idea here is that you can get 12% return by putting your money here versus the 1-2% the bank gives you? The downside being there is risk on losing that money? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 9:02:23 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The announcement is creating quite a stir over on the bogleheads forum. Both Vanguard and Fidelity generate additional income by "securities lending" (of the customers stocks held in the funds). Vanguard says they put all additional income from this activity (except for small expenses) back into the funds. Not sure about Fidelity treatment, or differences in risk level due to their own internal rules. Also, the two Fidelity zero funds will track their own index list of stocks, which have not been revealed yet. Waiting to see how this plays out. Im sure there will be some Vanguard response. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 9:08:32 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know about any of this. The idea here is that you can get 12% return by putting your money here versus the 1-2% the bank gives you? The downside being there is risk on losing that money? 
It's about to be the longest bull market in a while. What fidelity is doing is putting the icing on the cake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 9:09:58 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except in the long run you won’t lose $. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't know about any of this. The idea here is that you can get 12% return by putting your money here versus the 1-2% the bank gives you? The downside being there is risk on losing that money? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 9:11:24 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Might want to explain what "securities lending" actually is to the folks here that don't understand the shorting mechanism. Especially the role hedge funds play in that little endeavor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The announcement is creating quite a stir over on the bogleheads forum. Both Vanguard and Fidelity generate additional income by "securities lending" (of the customers stocks held in the funds). Vanguard says they put all additional income from this activity (except for small expenses) back into the funds. Not sure about Fidelity treatment, or differences in risk level due to their own internal rules. Also, the two Fidelity zero funds will track their own index list of stocks, which have not been revealed yet. Waiting to see how this plays out. Im sure there will be some Vanguard response. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 9:11:24 AM EDT
[#21]
double tap
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 9:16:24 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: that entirely depends on the index...https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OG-BB802_nasdaq_4U_20180117160331.png |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 9:24:02 AM EDT
[#23]
What is the symbol for the EFT?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 9:24:06 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SO, if you had put your money in this fund in 2000 it would have taken until 2015 for you break even? That's why you dollar cost average so you're buying shares at a low price to offset shares purchased before the downturn. Timing the market is hard to do. Very few people can consistently time the market. I started my investing career in 2004 all throughout the run, burst, crash, and recovery. I kept putting money in every month. I wish was sitting on a bunch of extra cash to buy into the 2008 crash but only hindsight lets me say that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 9:27:05 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what is GD's thoughts on index funds right now? I have money in one and it's done OK but wondering if I should get out before it crashes next year or two. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 9:28:29 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No fees? What are they trying to get out of this? Simply stealing clients away from other firms? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 9:37:47 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SO, if you had put your money in this fund in 2000 it would have taken until 2015 for you break even? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: that entirely depends on the index...https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OG-BB802_nasdaq_4U_20180117160331.png As a second point, just about nobody invests their entire life in one big lump sum at a singular point in time. If some one has been investing in a fund which mirrored this index for the past 18 years, they'd more likely have new money invested at numerous points between 2000 and 2015. Their first dollar invested in would have performed terribly but their dollars invested in 2001...20002...20003...2004...ect would have had a much better go at it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 9:43:01 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SO, if you had put your money in this fund in 2000 it would have taken until 2015 for you break even? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: that entirely depends on the index...https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OG-BB802_nasdaq_4U_20180117160331.png
Nikkei 225 is still not back up. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 9:47:45 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know about any of this. The idea here is that you can get 12% return by putting your money here versus the 1-2% the bank gives you? The downside being there is risk on losing that money? I know far less about this than I’d like, but I’ve always found securities trading fascinating so I think I can give you a good enough definition. 1. The hell are you getting 2% on a bank account? Best money market I know of (Barclays btw) is 1.75% interest. Brick and mortar savings account is more like 0.02%. That’s not even matching inflation, so you’re losing purchasing power in a savings account every year. 2. The stock market as a whole returns around 15% over time. Well above inflation. An ETF is a package put together by a brokerage firm. A brokerage firm is who buys and sells stocks on your behalf and charges you a fee on the transaction. What you’re buying with an ETF is a piece of a portfolio, consisting of any number of stocks, bonds, commodities etc. They set them up to try and mirror the performance of certain indexes well known examples being the S&P 500 or Dow Jones Industrial Average. Could you do this yourself? Yes. You could purchase a share of every stock on the S&P 500. However, it’d be thousands of dollars to do so and around $5 for each trade. That’s the value they provide, the brokerage house bought a huge chunk of all of them and let’s you buy a piece of each for a small fee of whatever you’re able to invest. Whether that be $100 or $100,000. It gets infinitely more complex when you get into the details but they’re designed in general for the lay investor. You tell them how much risk you’re willing to take and what your timeline for needing your money back and they’ll recommend you options. That’ll in general be more diversified (lower risk) perform better and be vastly cheaper than you could do unless this is your full time job. And even if it is your full time job there’s no reason to not have at least some of your money in these types of funds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 9:48:49 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. The stocks that make up this index pay dividends, not big ones, but they exist nonetheless. That would be on top of whatever is shown on that chart unless the index is inclusive of dividends, which presume the one in the chart is not. As a second point, just about nobody invests their entire life in one big lump sum at a singular point in time. If some one has been investing in a fund which mirrored this index for the past 18 years, they'd more likely have new money invested at numerous points between 2000 and 2015. Their first dollar invested in would have performed terribly but their dollars invested in 2001...20002...20003...2004...ect would have had a much better go at it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: that entirely depends on the index...https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OG-BB802_nasdaq_4U_20180117160331.png As a second point, just about nobody invests their entire life in one big lump sum at a singular point in time. If some one has been investing in a fund which mirrored this index for the past 18 years, they'd more likely have new money invested at numerous points between 2000 and 2015. Their first dollar invested in would have performed terribly but their dollars invested in 2001...20002...20003...2004...ect would have had a much better go at it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 9:54:50 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
DCA is why 401ks end up working so well over the long term. But when someone retires, they are basically putting a lump sum to work at that one point in time as the cash flow into the account has stopped. It still sucks that you loose 30-40% of your money. Really no reason for that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: that entirely depends on the index...https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OG-BB802_nasdaq_4U_20180117160331.png As a second point, just about nobody invests their entire life in one big lump sum at a singular point in time. If some one has been investing in a fund which mirrored this index for the past 18 years, they'd more likely have new money invested at numerous points between 2000 and 2015. Their first dollar invested in would have performed terribly but their dollars invested in 2001...20002...20003...2004...ect would have had a much better go at it. First, cash flow in has stopped but the outflow is likewise going to be periodic rather than all at once. You aren't going to withdraw everything on Day 1 of retirement. Second, I presume that anyone who was REALLY counting on that money in retirement would be shifting their asset allocation to a more conservative mix as they approached retirement so that they wouldn't get stuck with the full misfortune of a 2008 event when they retired in 2007. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 9:57:56 AM EDT
[#32]
Regarding the whole managed fund fees and beating the indexes and the like.
I have a friend who has developed and run an investment club site for a "long time" (Internet perspective). But he has quite a lot of data and has been able to study the results of different approaches. His own money is pretty much all in Berkshire Hathaway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 9:58:00 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
30 years ago some professor said investing in the index works better than attempting to be more savvy. that works as long as central banks keep pushing entire markets ever higher with fake currency printing, which they have been able to do since then, every time the market attempts to correct. past performance is not indicative of future results. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 10:01:00 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I sorta agree but there at least a few mitigating factors. First, cash flow in has stopped but the outflow is likewise going to be periodic rather than all at once. You aren't going to withdraw everything on Day 1 of retirement. Second, I presume that anyone who was REALLY counting on that money in retirement would be shifting their asset allocation to a more conservative mix as they approached retirement so that they wouldn't get stuck with the full misfortune of a 2008 event when they retired in 2007. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: that entirely depends on the index...https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OG-BB802_nasdaq_4U_20180117160331.png As a second point, just about nobody invests their entire life in one big lump sum at a singular point in time. If some one has been investing in a fund which mirrored this index for the past 18 years, they'd more likely have new money invested at numerous points between 2000 and 2015. Their first dollar invested in would have performed terribly but their dollars invested in 2001...20002...20003...2004...ect would have had a much better go at it. First, cash flow in has stopped but the outflow is likewise going to be periodic rather than all at once. You aren't going to withdraw everything on Day 1 of retirement. Second, I presume that anyone who was REALLY counting on that money in retirement would be shifting their asset allocation to a more conservative mix as they approached retirement so that they wouldn't get stuck with the full misfortune of a 2008 event when they retired in 2007. The biggest thing that has lulled a sense of security into retirees is how the recovery unfolded from 2008, it was a pronounced V shape recovery. That was not the case at all in 2000-2002....the next one probably won't have the savior of rates dropping 800 basis points to bolster bonds either....matter of fact most of the bond funds are keeping their duration low due to rising rates and in turn will lose the effectiveness of a large duration number if rates were to fall. Then despite all the technical quirks in navigating all of this you then have to consider a persons emotions in all of this mix. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 10:12:43 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @madmathew I know far less about this than I'd like, but I've always found securities trading fascinating so I think I can give you a good enough definition. 1. The hell are you getting 2% on a bank account? Best money market I know of (Barclays btw) is 1.75% interest. Brick and mortar savings account is more like 0.02%. That's not even matching inflation, so you're losing purchasing power in a savings account every year. I just picked 2% randomly. Thanks for the explanation! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 10:14:27 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: adjusted for inflation actually 18 years...
Nikkei 225 is still not back up. http://www.aboutinflation.com/_/rsrc/1371880354161/inflation-adjusted-charts/world-indices-inflation-adjusted-charts/nikkei-225-index-inflation-adjusted/Nikkei_225_Index_Inflation_Adjusted_Historical_Chart_May_2013.png |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 10:15:05 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess late 1989 was a good time to sell. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: adjusted for inflation actually 18 years...
Nikkei 225 is still not back up. http://www.aboutinflation.com/_/rsrc/1371880354161/inflation-adjusted-charts/world-indices-inflation-adjusted-charts/nikkei-225-index-inflation-adjusted/Nikkei_225_Index_Inflation_Adjusted_Historical_Chart_May_2013.png |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 11:01:47 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know about any of this. The idea here is that you can get 12% return by putting your money here versus the 1-2% the bank gives you? The downside being there is risk on losing that money? For the former: Take some time to learn the fundamentals about fund or ETF investing for the long term. It ain't rocket science if you can figure out how to ignore the charlatans. Ive already suggested a good, free place to start (bogleheads.org). And/Or just copy one of the "lazy portfolio"s (google it), add money religiously, and rebalance to a decreasing % ratio of stock/bond funds based on your age once a year. (Following that last sentence is the essence that will give you a comfortable retirement). The most important things are saving $$$ and saving early. Secondarily are low fee index funds. You can do it in tax sheltered (401K, IRA, Roth IRA) and/or taxable funds (might take a bit more strategy for tax management). Whatever you have access to. For the latter: Thanks. Keep doing what you are doing. 20% of you might beat the market in some years, and lose out in others (especially after they subtract trading fees). Us index investors need some suckers to set the market prices! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 11:24:28 AM EDT
[#39]
@midcap
It's always bugged the shit out of me that Dave Ramsey claims that it's very easy to find mutual funds that average a 12% annual return or better over time, but he NEVER mentions specifically the funds he's talking about. Are these returns common in mutual funds that require huge minimum investments? Or is he full of shit?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 11:26:35 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: yeah that was a disaster over there in Japan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 11:38:41 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wasn't thinking about that, but how many people actually itemize their deductions? I'm even less an expert on taxes than investments, but I'm guessing outside of arfcom a good number of people take the standard deduction. I might be totally wrong. 9 basis points..I guess. I'd actually still think about it depending on a couple factors, but you might be right I was just using the previous posters 15 and 45 numbers (BTW now I see I actually misunderstood his post), but what about when that spread is 100 basis points right? 15 or whatever on an index fund and 120 points on an actively managed. The numbers do get yuge over time even if you can deduct part of that fee.
Sounds like you get it, probably more than I do. I think a lot of people never even consider the fees though, at least that's what I've experienced at work when I talk to younger employees and coworkers about it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Total noob here, would this just be free free stock trades? Is this worth opening an account? Stock trades in most cases have a fee on fidelity. This is a mutual fund (not a stock, a bundle of stocks) you can transfer money in to (for free), and it has no upkeep charge (free). So in theory all your money stays your money. It is like having a savings account that is made up of stocks. It sounds better than having an old fashioned savings account in every way except it could lose value. I'll have to see if my 401k with them picks that up as an investment option. EDIT: I do think the management fee gets a bit too much attention. I have one account with a management fee of .45% that earned 16%, and I have another account that has a .015% management fee that earned 12%. If I had $100 in each, I'd have 116 and 112 before the fee, and 115.5 and 111.98 after the fee if I'm doing my math right here. The large issue is that nobody can tell you whether the fund with the higher fee will actually have better results or not: statistically it won't perform any better, so the numerically sensible choice is to pick the one with the lowest fee. But statistics are one of the three kinds of lies. . . My only point is it's definitely worthwhile to research funds and stay on top of our fees, and make sure we understand exactly the costs, and tradeoffs, we're making with high-fee funds. Not that I disagree with you in principle, but using your example of 45 vs 15 basis points. Reduced by 30% tax savings. We're talking .09% difference. (Assuming you're already over 2% AGI). I'm not making major life choices over 9 basis points. 9 basis points..I guess. I'd actually still think about it depending on a couple factors, but you might be right I was just using the previous posters 15 and 45 numbers (BTW now I see I actually misunderstood his post), but what about when that spread is 100 basis points right? 15 or whatever on an index fund and 120 points on an actively managed. The numbers do get yuge over time even if you can deduct part of that fee.
Sounds like you get it, probably more than I do. I think a lot of people never even consider the fees though, at least that's what I've experienced at work when I talk to younger employees and coworkers about it. That's not really the point I was making though, all I was trying to say and not doing a good job of it is A) I 100% agree in principle. Understanding WACC/IRR/RRR etc and using them are fundamental to making sound financial decisions. Costs stack up, and interest be like it is and it do. B) on the other hand forward projections are inherently limited / theoretical, when you start getting into making 30 year decisions using single digit basis points, you're well inside the margin for error and overvaluing their utility. The tax deductibility was an illustrative point, that the totality of circumstances need to be considered. Again though, to your point, I've seen some heinous fees numbers on brokerage statements on retirement age folks with largish portfolios back when I was still assisting with returns. And from what I remember they varied wildly by broker on similar portfolio setups. I'm really liking what I've seen on the fee numbers vs returns on the computer directed portfolios. That and I trust the quants that designed the software vs random jackoff in regional bank wealth management office. ETA: forgot to add. When you get into 100+ basis points, then yeah you've got my attention and efforts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 11:45:15 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
@midcap It's always bugged the shit out of me that Dave Ramsey claims that it's very easy to find mutual funds that average a 12% annual return or better over time, but he NEVER mentions specifically the funds he's talking about. Are these returns common in mutual funds that require huge minimum investments? Or is he full of shit? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 11:50:32 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Regarding the whole managed fund fees and beating the indexes and the like. I have a friend who has developed and run an investment club site for a "long time" (Internet perspective). But he has quite a lot of data and has been able to study the results of different approaches. His own money is pretty much all in Berkshire Hathaway.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 11:53:41 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Might want to explain what "securities lending" actually is to the folks here that don't understand the shorting mechanism. Especially the role hedge funds play in that little endeavor. https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/ISGSL.pdf As for hedge funds, I did research them years ago and decided I wouldn't touch them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 11:54:46 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Time to move some money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 12:01:02 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know he is buying active management funds, not index funds. When you account for the fund fees, I would be surprised if he is faring much better than passive funds, if at all, over the long-term. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 12:01:08 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's why you dollar cost average so you're buying shares at a low price to offset shares purchased before the downturn. Timing the market is hard to do. Very few people can consistently time the market. I started my investing career in 2004 all throughout the run, burst, crash, and recovery. I kept putting money in every month. I wish was sitting on a bunch of extra cash to buy into the 2008 crash but only hindsight lets me say that. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 12:03:01 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you actually that much better off investing in actively managed funds, especially when accounting for the huge fees? I think that's the big question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 12:03:54 PM EDT
[#49]
Easy to say no-fee when the ticket charges are $18.95 or so.
They ain't doin' it for free. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2018 12:27:56 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dollar cost averaging IS timing the market. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: That's why you dollar cost average so you're buying shares at a low price to offset shares purchased before the downturn. Timing the market is hard to do. Very few people can consistently time the market. I started my investing career in 2004 all throughout the run, burst, crash, and recovery. I kept putting money in every month. I wish was sitting on a bunch of extra cash to buy into the 2008 crash but only hindsight lets me say that. Timing the market, in my understanding involves both buying & selling (or shorting) through high level market analysis. As in, you've predicted the 08 crash and deliberately played it by selling/shorting at peak and buying back in the trough. What's your interpretation? I only know enough to know I don't know half of what I should So I'm always looking to learn.#IHeartMidCapthreads |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
