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

231–240 of 279 posts

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

#231

Post by losvedir »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #7
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…

TBH, I trust vanguard more, even if their website is absolutely worse. There's a saying, 'if you're not the customer, you're the product'. I expect trades on those index funds are getting 'front run' much like robinhood is getting front run. You might have a lower ER but your nav might effectively be higher when buying and lower when selling. Of course, I'm a 'buy and hold' investor so this doesn't really effect me m…

You expect wrong. I think you're talking about Payment for Order Flow (PFOF) which Fidelity does not use.[0]

[0] https://www.fidelity.com/trading/execution-quality/overview

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

#232

Post by zerocrates »

echoangle wrote: post #196
lolc wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine they have actual customer service. But maybe I'm naive?

In what situation would you contact them? Aren’t basically all possible problems you could have something you would contact your broker for?

Vanguard is also a broker.

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

#233

Post by hawaiianbrah »

js2 wrote: post #205
nothercastle wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I used this card for a few months before usbank launched their smartly card, at which point I moved 100k from fidelity to a usbank IRA and now enjoy 4% cash back.

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

#234

Post by aantix »

paulpauper wrote: post #217
aantix wrote: post #163

Feels so strange that the average investor can't outperform an index fund with low management fees. A small investor is so agile - they can move in and out of positions. Why that agility can't be utilized to outperform a slow moving index fund, long-term?

Some can. I have done well with leveraged tech funds.

Is TQQQ a long-term holding?

You could stomach the 80% draw down?

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

#235

Post by stearns »

echoangle wrote: post #196
lolc wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine they have actual customer service. But maybe I'm naive?

In what situation would you contact them? Aren’t basically all possible problems you could have something you would contact your broker for?

Right, you are hinting at the angle that other commenters have pointed at, which is that Vanguard runs a fund management business (which is what the article is about) but also runs a brokerage, does 401k/403b/529 administration, has an advisory business, etc. The total employee count refers to employees working across all those business units, and that includes a lot of customer service, regulatory, back office, etc.

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

#236

Post by Maxatar »

aantix wrote: post #234
paulpauper wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some can. I have done well with leveraged tech funds.

Is TQQQ a long-term holding? You could stomach the 80% draw down?

I've been holding it for close to 10 years, it's my best performing holding by a long shot. I like to hold leveraged ETFs in my tax-free investment account and TQQQ along with UPRO are the ETFs of choice for me.

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

#237

Post by anonymousDan »

ElevenLathe wrote: post #46
londons_explore wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But does that structure confer any realistic chance of voting control by any real humans who aren't already employed by vanguard? Funds aren't known for being voting activists.

Even so, I think the incentives are still for the Vanguard management to make as little profit as possible so that they can compete and have more funds under management. Controlling more billions of dollars of stock shares is kind of its own reward and brings many opportunities for enrichment, and if they don't have to worry about making money for shareholders, they can pretty much always engineer the lowest fees.

This kind of thing makes me nervous. What kind of opportunities? Can they somehow loan out shares for example?

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

#238

Post by gruez »

toast0 wrote: post #213
gruez wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most of the illegal front running is trading ahead of specific trades in response to seeing those orders. Any evidence this is actually happening, rather than something like "this ETF rebalances every quarter, they're unbalanced, and are expected to rebalance in this way", or "this company is probably going to get included in the S&P 500 because it's doing really well"? What makes this sort of "front running" less a…

Here's three SEC press releases that seem to indicate there's evidence of illegal front running: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021-118 https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021-186 https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022-228 Trading ahead of index funds when an index change is announced is front running in my book, but it isn't illegal front running; but I don't consider it less accepta…

All 3 examples you provided are for people trading on material nonpublic information. In other words, some guy working at an asset manger knew they were going to execute trades on behalf of a client, and then made his own trade ahead of that. That's textbook front running, no denying it, but that's not anywhere close to what's happening with "ETF rebalancing" or PFOF. It's perfectly legal, for instance to speculate on whether TSLA or whatever is going to make it into the S&P 500 and "front run" that. It's also not clear why such trades would be immoral or unfair.

>https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021-118

>Wygovsky repeatedly traded in his family members’ accounts held at brokerage firms in the United States ahead of large trades that were executed on the same days in the accounts of his employer’s advisory clients.

>https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021-186

>Polevikov had access to real-time, non-public information about the size and timing of his employers' securities orders and trades, and used that information to secretly trade on, and ahead of, his employers' trades.

>https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022-228

>Billimek would inform Williams of the asset management firm’s market-moving trades prior to their execution

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

#239

Post by niceice »

latchkey wrote: post #108
greyface- wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. I own a few shares of MSTR in my Vanguard brokerage account.

Good choice, one of my best investments ever. Get to 100 shares and sell some covered calls.

What happens at 100 shares?

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

#240

Post by robocat »

matthewaveryusa wrote: post #113
bombcar wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fidelity uses those funds as marketing, and they make up for it with all the other services and funds they offer. It's intentional, and it's working. Vanguard is more and more becoming a group that just wants to run ETFs and if you want to use them, they're making it harder and harder. They recently dumped all their 401(k) and similar plans from being in-house to some other provider. Saves costs, makes support annoyi…

>Of course, you can use a Fidelity account to own Vanguard ETFs if you wanted. Which I would highly recommend if you ever want to change brokers. the fidelity ZERO products are great but can only be held at fidelity while VOO shares can be transfered to any broker.

I presume the main advantage of transferring shares is to avoid taxation on realised gains. Secondary is to avoid transaction fees?

I sold and bought recently (because transfer looked like paperwork hassle to me): had a small transaction cost, and the main disbenefit was losing transaction history e.g. buy date was now reset; it was tax neutral for me either way.

Post reply on HN