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

201–210 of 279 posts

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

#201

Post by recursive »

latchkey wrote: post #178
recursive wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather not have to either. I'm going to be honest. I'm not a smart man. I don't understand the first link at all. The other two I don't care about. However , to the extent that those things are bad, they are much less bad than my trust in myself to securely manage a crypto wallet key. If there was some magic thing that just automatically worked and I could somehow trust it, I would be all in. That's not the case…

The internet was very confusing to most people before AOL came along and gave out free CD's with email addresses. Just because the UX sucks today, doesn't mean the fundamental underlying technology isn't something worth building on. By the way, if you think crypto UX is hard, try trading options with thinkorswim.

> By the way, if you think crypto UX is hard, try trading options with thinkorswim.

You've misunderstood me. I have no interest in shitty UX. A competition for the shittiest UX is like the lowest high jump. You want a shitty UX? I can get you one by 4:30, with nail polish. The fact that extremely confusing UX is easy to find in no way mitigates a merely very confusing UX.

I kind of agree with you though. Cryptocurrency is kind of a neat idea. Shame about the actual manifestation though. I'm not opposed on principle. If anyone ever figures out how to make it good, I'll check it out. But in the first 15 years, nothing reasonable has emerged. I don't have much hope for the next 15 years either.

Maybe someone will figure it out, but I don't think that's actually going to happen. So I don't think investments in cryptocurrency research or whatever is a good idea.

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

#202

Post by dmoy »

Arrowmaster wrote: post #144
sjf wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's slightly better now. I think they removed the onscreen keyboard and finally let you type your password directly. But it's still bad.

Do you like radio buttons? I hope you like radio buttons.

Even if the thing that you're using for really, really shouldn't be a radio button.

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

#203

Post by layer8 »

frognumber wrote: post #104

I'll be contrarian. The general wisdom is hold the fund with the lowest fee structure. However, if the fee structure is 0.07%, that's $70/year / 100k invested. Even if it's 0.44%, you're talking about $440. The fees on most funds are small enough now to not matter much. It's worth shopping for lower-fee funds, but the more you go below 0.5%, the less it matters. If I save $500 per year for 50 years, that's $25k+inter…

For index funds, the important measure is the tracking difference [0] anyway. While the costs contribute to it, different ETFs on the same index differ in their typical/historic tracking differences beyond their differences in nominal cost.

[0] https://www.morningstar.com/business/insights/blog/funds/etf...

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

#204

Post by latchkey »

recursive wrote: post #201
latchkey wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet was very confusing to most people before AOL came along and gave out free CD's with email addresses. Just because the UX sucks today, doesn't mean the fundamental underlying technology isn't something worth building on. By the way, if you think crypto UX is hard, try trading options with thinkorswim.

> By the way, if you think crypto UX is hard, try trading options with thinkorswim. You've misunderstood me. I have no interest in shitty UX. A competition for the shittiest UX is like the lowest high jump. You want a shitty UX? I can get you one by 4:30, with nail polish. The fact that extremely confusing UX is easy to find in no way mitigates a merely very confusing UX. I kind of agree with you though. Cryptocurren…

Define "make it good", cause the way I see it today, it is extremely good. But then again, I understand the UX and I don't find it difficult at all.

I actually wonder if you've tried it... it really is just put in an address, amount (of any size), and click send.

Want to earn interest or borrow funds? Load up Morpho.org, deposit into a vault of your liking and borrow whatever you want. No need to ask anyone for permission and fully decentralized. Even the source code is public and audited. Don't trust it? There's nearly $6B in there and Coinbase built a whole product around it. It couldn't be all bad.

I think things have progressed quite a lot in the last few years. Take a look, you might be surprised.

The UX for some of my banks are way worse. For example, the limits on transfer sizes are obtuse. 25k limit? WTF, it is my money, let me move it around how I wish, I'm not a criminal.

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

#205

Post by js2 »

nothercastle wrote: post #159
silisili wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fidelity has great features, but is hamstrung by their awful execution. The app is clunky, slow, and looks like something from the 90s. Just logging in takes an average of 10-15 seconds. The credit card is serviced by Elan, who is awful, but aside from that, the UX is abysmal. It feels like it redirects no less than 8 times to get to the credit card page. My phone won't even load it, so I have to do it on my computer…

Good to know that Elan services the card and is terrible. I’ll avoid

FWIW, I've been using the card since late 2019 and had zero issues with it. There aren't a lot of 2% cards that just straight give you 2% cash back w/o any hoops[1]. The Fidelity card is no muss no fuss for me. 2% just magically appears in my designated Fidelity account at the end of the month.

I have not had to interact with Elan customer service, so I can't speak to that. I also don't care about the Fidelity mobile app (I use fidelty.com from my laptop). I haven't had any issues using fidelty.com to manage the card.

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/CreditCards/wiki/list_of_flat_cashb...

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

#206

Post by b8 »

loeg wrote: post #132
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.

I meant price wise. VTI is almost $300 per share.

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

#207

Post by layer8 »

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #142

Fees are good but I am concerned about too much correlation in the markets, caused by index funds. Basically everyone holds the same assets.

Any imbalance should be easily exploitable by market players, so I would think it should be self-correcting.

Also, worldwide there are quite different preferences in which indexes to hold, so there is some variation.

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

#208

Post by vanrohan »

I wish there can be more focus on the voting rights for passive funds. Investors are concentrating voting power with these fund managers, just giving away their voting rights for free. I'd like to see better investor voting management systems become more available for "pass through" voting for passive fund investors.

[1] https://vanderwalt.de/blog/etf-vs-direct-indexing-investing-...

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

#209

Post by richid »

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 alone is why I will always choose Vanguard if possible.

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

#210

Post by yerebnu »

Maxatar wrote: post #176
wil421 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At %0.07 you would lose about 2% of your total value after 30 years.[1] No thanks. [1] https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/How_much_do_you_lose_to_annu...

2% over 30 years is inconsequential. At an average rate of 7%, that mean you'll grow your investment by 759% over 30 years instead of 761%.

Your math is way off. It's not merely 2% of the initial investment, but your final overall wealth.
Post reply on HN