31–40 of 279 posts
That only applies to US funds, but not in the UK ones which continue to be significantly more expensive...
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…
Funds aren't known for being voting activists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Front running is illegal.
Only if you get caught. And the fine needs to be higher than the profit.
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.
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.
> they didn't list specific symbols though. rule of journalism: never quote the original news/article source rule of financial journalism: never list the ticker/wkn/isin that would make the article actually useful
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…
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…
The downside, as I understand it, is that Fidelity Zero doesn’t offer ETFs, and that the Fidelity Zero mutual funds can’t be transferred to other brokerages. Depending on your preferences their expense ratios might justify the vendor lock-in, but Vanguard ETFs are hard to beat IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this about the funds, rather than using Vanguard as a broker? Can't you buy Vanguard funds while on Fidelity, or vice versa?
You can. There's usually a hefty transaction fee when purchasing a funds not managed by whichever service you're on ($49?). Might be manageable if you're purchasing in enormous quantities; but a 5% fee on $1000 hurts if you're in normal consumer purchase ranges.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Front running is illegal.
Edit: No, it's not in the US at least. It mostly just allows the broker to internalize orders if they prefer.