Jack Bogle would hate what Vanguard has become
ristforever.com
Jack Bogle would hate what Vanguard has become
1–10 of 29 posts
Re: Jack Bogle would hate what Vanguard has become
#2[deleted]
Re: Jack Bogle would hate what Vanguard has become
#3Fees on my passive investments there (mostly target date funds) seem to be as low as ever? I don’t care if they offer _more_ options as long as it doesn’t negatively impact their passive business.
Re: Jack Bogle would hate what Vanguard has become
#4Fees on my passive investments there (mostly target date funds) seem to be as low as ever? I don’t care if they offer _more_ options as long as it doesn’t negatively impact their passive business.
Fair point. My thought is they are clearly spending money on tons of people they wouldn't have to if they were strictly passive. Presumably, if they didn't, the fees would be lower than they are now.
Re: Jack Bogle would hate what Vanguard has become
#5Fidelity has been killing it with their passive investing options. Zero expense ratio funds, cash management account.
I am going to switch, will save perhaps 30k in fees over next few decades
Re: Jack Bogle would hate what Vanguard has become
#6Fees on my passive investments there (mostly target date funds) seem to be as low as ever? I don’t care if they offer _more_ options as long as it doesn’t negatively impact their passive business.
Fair point. My thought is they are clearly spending money on tons of people they wouldn't have to if they were strictly passive. Presumably, if they didn't, the fees would be lower than they are now.
3 bps instead of 4? That’s a savings of… $100 on a million annually.
Re: Jack Bogle would hate what Vanguard has become
#7Fidelity has been killing it with their passive investing options. Zero expense ratio funds, cash management account. I am going to switch, will save perhaps 30k in fees over next few decades
Absolutely. Fidelity has been closer to Vanguard's historical reputation than Vanguard itself in recent years.
Re: Jack Bogle would hate what Vanguard has become
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair point. My thought is they are clearly spending money on tons of people they wouldn't have to if they were strictly passive. Presumably, if they didn't, the fees would be lower than they are now.
3 bps instead of 4? That’s a savings of… $100 on a million annually.
I mean even $100 annually compounds to be tens of thousands over a lifetime. Furthermore, Vanguard manages like almost 10 trillion so that ends up being nearly a billion extra extracted per year.
My main issue though is that Vanguard's brand is low-risk passive, but they are now selling high-risk active funds under that brand.
Re: Jack Bogle would hate what Vanguard has become
#9Fidelity has been killing it with their passive investing options. Zero expense ratio funds, cash management account. I am going to switch, will save perhaps 30k in fees over next few decades
I like Fidelity (and Vanguard), but at the metric the OP post uses (% employees handling passive products), Fidelity is likely far, far worse than Vanguard - Fidelity has 4 employees for every 1 Vanguard employee. And the whole point of passive products is that you don't have an employee managing a fund whose expenses eat into returns. Vanguard and Fidelity both continue to offer excellent passive products, and Vanguard also continues to cut fee ratios on its passive products, while some of their competitors have been incredibly anti-consumer by launching new lower-fee versions of a fund instead of lowering the fees on their existing fund.
It's also great that Fidelity has their “zero” offerings, but 1) they are mutual funds so considered less tax efficient in the long term if in a taxable account, and 2) can't be transferred to a Fidelity competitor brokerage, which can also be an issue if in a taxable account.
Re: Jack Bogle would hate what Vanguard has become
#10Fees on my passive investments there (mostly target date funds) seem to be as low as ever? I don’t care if they offer _more_ options as long as it doesn’t negatively impact their passive business.
Fair point. My thought is they are clearly spending money on tons of people they wouldn't have to if they were strictly passive. Presumably, if they didn't, the fees would be lower than they are now.
Why should we presume that? It seems equally likely that the fees would have to be higher if not supported by profitable cross-sales.