Jack Bogle would hate what Vanguard has become(ristforever.com) |
Jack Bogle would hate what Vanguard has become(ristforever.com) |
I am going to switch, will save perhaps 30k in fees over next few decades
It's also great that Fidelity has their “zero” offerings, but 1) they are mutual funds so considered less tax efficient in the long term if in a taxable account, and 2) can't be transferred to a Fidelity competitor brokerage, which can also be an issue if in a taxable account.
Also if you are in taxable I would be worried about being locked in if fidelity start charging fees on them.
I think vanguard is a safer bet to keep fees low long term.
And ultimately 4bps is irrelevant.
I think he'd prefer that be the only product Vanguard offered to individuals.
You can be held to your words too!
They aren't the cheapest anymore in almost every category, but their brand recognition has exploded here in recent years.
Investors in the UK are not partners in Vanguards mutual structure, and Vanguards UK platform ("Vanguard Investor") is not run by Vanguard but by a third party (FNZ, a New Zealand fintech).
OCF for VT, a global equity index ETF in the US, is 0.06%
UK equivalent (the Global All Cap Index Fund, or perhaps the VWRP All World ETF) is 0.23% and 0.19% respectively, and the latter excludes small caps and both have fewer holdings than VT
Invesco's All World ETF in the UK, tracking the same index is 0.15% and HSBC have an index fund tracking the same index also at 0.13%
Vanguard UK have a 0.15% platform fee whereas the best UK alternatives are completely free.
Vanguard UK recently introduced a minimum nominal platform fee on top which screwed over small investors.
Vanguard are no longer cheap and not on our side.
What specific concern do you have in mind? Are you aware that the corporate structure of Vanguard is that it is the funds who own the company, not the other way around?
https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/c...
why would the active funds fail?
if you have 1.1 million in the bank you can afford to take $500 to poker tables
My main issue though is that Vanguard's brand is low-risk passive, but they are now selling high-risk active funds under that brand.
But Vanguard under Bogle always played both sides of the fence at least to some extent. They have always had that actively managed Windsor fund, right? And Wellington?
I think your article headline shows you have a fair bit more to learn about Bogle. Or at least you haven't made your case on that front. Bogle was at least as much about low cost and aligning interests of the investment client as he was about passive indexing, though he is known more for the latter.
Here's a writeup with a couple pointers to more on the topic from Bogle: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=388377
Quibbling over one basis point in fees just doesn't feel valuable. Tracking error will be larger than this.
Mutual funds are cheap and have no tax disadvantages for us. In fact, outside of tax sheltered accounts, mutual funds are a lot easier to manage for tax purposes.
No, Vanguard just think it's fine to charge us 4x as much
VWRP, which I mentioned, is also an ETF