81–90 of 279 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
Rule of legal journalism: never link a PDF to the actual court opinion/decision . . .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vanguard funds are owned by the investors in those funds. The fees that they charge are to cover the expenses, not make profit for a private company. If they're doing so well that the fees are brining in more money than they need, they lower the fees so that their owners (the investors in the funds) don't have to pay as much in fees. Their business is doing so well that they can lower fees.
> Their business is doing so well that they can lower fees. The counter to that is that they are not doing so well, that they need to attract more investors.
That only applies to US funds, but not in the UK ones which continue to be significantly more expensive...
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?
Let's not forget that Vanguard has taken a strong stance against crypto [0]. Claiming to significantly invest in technology while deliberately ignoring the latest advancements in financial technology, seems contradictory. If their business was doing so well, they wouldn't have to lower fees. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42832026
There is a difference between investment and speculation and lots of people learn it the hard way, eventually.
I've been long on crypto since 2013, I'm not a crypto day trader, and I'm well aware of DeFi. I consider that an investment, not speculation.
Let people treat things the way they want to. All of the people who want to stick with Vanguard and their position are free to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Their business is doing so well that they can lower fees. The counter to that is that they are not doing so well, that they need to attract more investors.
Your counter assumes that it's one or the other, but there could be more reasons, such as doing well but looking to steal even more market share. At over $10 trillion AUM, it's hard to think that they're "not doing so well".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
cynically, crypto’s greatest achievement thus far has been speed running 200 years of financial mistakes and explaining why we need financial regulation.
It is so predictable to get a straw man argument like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26238410
Let's not forget that Vanguard has taken a strong stance against crypto [0]. Claiming to significantly invest in technology while deliberately ignoring the latest advancements in financial technology, seems contradictory. If their business was doing so well, they wouldn't have to lower fees. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42832026
And now I trust Vanguard just a little more.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/17/vanguard-fined-more-than-100...
https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-rele...
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/vanguard-fined-prov...
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 really annoying that people here are talking about "Zero" fee funds as if they were zero-fee funds. As far as I can tell "Zero" means less than 0.05% fees.
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.
The full list is at the bottom of their press release: https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/c...
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'm waiting for negative fee funds that delivers better than indexed returns by loaning out the shares to shorts.
Also, sometimes the lending revenue is just added to the fund, rather than being used to offset expenses. The end result is the same, but the accounting numbers look different.
As a result, when comparing two index funds that track the same index, you should look at actual total returns rather than quoted expense ratios.