Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vanguard's average fee is now 0.07% after biggest-ever cut

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 279 posts

Re: Vanguard's average fee is now 0.07% after biggest-ever cut

#131

Post by sjf »

nineplay wrote: post #97
Enginerrrd wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We tried using vanguard. The UX/UI was so bad we went through the work of transferring everything to fidelity. They've got a pretty decent app. Vanguard has so much friction on what should be very simple and common tasks. There's no excuse for that. I can say pretty confidently that cutting fees won't be enough. They need a total rewrite of all their customer facing software and web stuff, and they probably need to r…

The idea of making financial decisions based on UI/UX is extraordinary to me.

I guess you’ve never had the displeasure of using treasurydirect.gov.

Re: Vanguard's average fee is now 0.07% after biggest-ever cut

#132

Post by loeg »

b8 wrote: post #124

I switched from VTI to ITOT, because Vanguard's actions recently have been drifting away from it's founders. This inspires confidence, but I'm still wary. VTI is too expensive compared to ITOT. Fidelity doesn't have any ETFs listed on the Bogleheads website either [0]. 0. https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three-fund_portfolio

> VTI is too expensive compared to ITOT.

What? Both are 0.03% ER funds.

Re: Vanguard's average fee is now 0.07% after biggest-ever cut

#134

Post by fallingknife »

Gshaheen wrote: post #17
ilamont wrote: post #3

Not mentioned in any of the coverage I've seen (or the interview with Vanguard's new CEO in the WSJ) is Fidelity. Fidelity used to be known for actively managed funds, but has been eating Vanguard's indexing lunch for the past 10 years or so. Part of this relates to its dominance in workplace accounts, but Vanguard hasn't helped itself with some bad customer-facing software updates and a perception that its service l…

One other differentiation that Vanguard has is that it is owned by the fund holders “Vanguard set out in 1975 under a radical ownership structure. Our company is owned by its funds, which in turn are owned by Vanguard’s fund shareholders. We focus on meeting the investment needs of our clients.” So in short, vanguard is customer-owned, where fidelity is owned by mostly the founding family (the Johnson’s). https://cor…

This is academic. I have equal control over both, which is to say none whatsoever. Capacity to influence a company falls to the following (in order)

1. Executives

2. Large shareholders (usually institutional and rarely individuals)

3. Customers

4. Employee unions (if present)

The tech industry is an anomaly where 1 and 2 largely overlap, but this is not true in most industries. Unless you are super rich, you will never be able to have more influence over a large company than you do in the role of a pissed off customer ready to take his money elsewhere.

Re: Vanguard's average fee is now 0.07% after biggest-ever cut

#135

Post by loeg »

nexle wrote: post #83
cess11 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My broker doesn't show fee on some of the Vanguard instruments, but e.g. the S&P 500 UCITS ETF (USD) has 0.08 % listed as fee. Which ones are you looking at?

VWRA (all world UCITS) probably the more famous one charging 0.22%, while the closest corresponding US ETF VT (total world) is just 0.06% (dropped from 0.07%)

How does AUM compare between the two?

Re: Vanguard's average fee is now 0.07% after biggest-ever cut

#136

Post by Dylan16807 »

zelon88 wrote: post #80
xadhominemx wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s pretty easy to learn how fidelity and others make money on fee-free index funds. Perhaps something to look into before accusing them of committing a crime.

Considering someone or some activity to be criminal, and accusing them of being a criminal, are two completely different things. I consider most financial institutions to be criminal because it is always their clear intention to circumvent the spirit of the law as closely as possible. The intention is to reap the benefits of breaking the law, without the risk of consequence. When the pitchforks come, these are going…

The client generally saves money in the PFOF situation. They benefit, their broker benefits, and the market maker they deal with benefits. The only loser is the abstract rest of the market being able to get fewer penny shavings.

What in particular do you see as against the spirit of the law?

Re: Vanguard's average fee is now 0.07% after biggest-ever cut

#137

Post by nothercastle »

ilamont wrote: post #3

Not mentioned in any of the coverage I've seen (or the interview with Vanguard's new CEO in the WSJ) is Fidelity. Fidelity used to be known for actively managed funds, but has been eating Vanguard's indexing lunch for the past 10 years or so. Part of this relates to its dominance in workplace accounts, but Vanguard hasn't helped itself with some bad customer-facing software updates and a perception that its service l…

It’s hard to beat Fidelitys offer right now. They give you a 2-3% checking account. A 2% cash back credit card, access to their low cost funds and a decent enough website. All in one place.

Other brokerages are better at their niche but the fidelity package is quite competitive

Re: Vanguard's average fee is now 0.07% after biggest-ever cut

#138

Post by loeg »

im3w1l wrote: post #76
JKCalhoun wrote: post #8

Article mentions their bond funds getting the most dramatic cuts — they didn't list specific symbols though. Anyone know off the top of their heads which funds specifically? Thinking I need to move away from being so stock-heavy.

Bonds kind of fell of my radar for a while. What are yields like now?

4-5%

Re: Vanguard's average fee is now 0.07% after biggest-ever cut

#139

Post by nothercastle »

edmundsauto wrote: post #34
op00to wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you get caught. And the fine needs to be higher than the profit.

I think the fine needs to be higher than the profit difference between the (illegal) and not illegal option. If you have a legal route to $1M and an illegal route to $1.5M, the rational calculation for fines is against the $0.5M delta, not the full amount.

The illegal 1.5 is always the optimal game theory choice because the chance of getting caught is not 100%

Re: Vanguard's average fee is now 0.07% after biggest-ever cut

#140

Post by nothercastle »

yesimahuman wrote: post #19
ilamont wrote: post #3

Not mentioned in any of the coverage I've seen (or the interview with Vanguard's new CEO in the WSJ) is Fidelity. Fidelity used to be known for actively managed funds, but has been eating Vanguard's indexing lunch for the past 10 years or so. Part of this relates to its dominance in workplace accounts, but Vanguard hasn't helped itself with some bad customer-facing software updates and a perception that its service l…

I don't think vanguard's core customer base cares about what hungry competitors are doing to entice them to move. Just look at Robinhood: they offered the biggest financial incentive for users to switch of any broker in the industry and I doubt many vanguard customers took them up on that. Stability, trust, and low fees are all buy and hold investors at Vanguard really care about.

They only offered it for a month or 2 and pulled it pretty quick
Post reply on HN