- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Vanguard-are there any negatives?
Posted on 3/28/15 at 7:45 pm
Posted on 3/28/15 at 7:45 pm
I like cheap index funds with vanguard.
Is there any downside long term with this strategy or w/vanguard?
Thoughts?
Is there any downside long term with this strategy or w/vanguard?
Thoughts?
8
Posted on 3/28/15 at 8:05 pm to player711
if you're going to invest in index funds/ETFs the expense ratio is hard to beat. When not investing in individual stocks I put all new money in Vanguard index ETFs
Posted on 3/28/15 at 10:13 pm to player711
I love Vanguard.
Low low low fees and complete control by me.
I have done very well over the last 6 years with Vanguard accounts.
Low low low fees and complete control by me.
I have done very well over the last 6 years with Vanguard accounts.
Posted on 3/28/15 at 10:46 pm to player711
Vanguard is fine, just be aware that most major firms aren't dummies and are much more competitive now than they used to be. Plus, you can often buy Vanguard funds at non-Vanguard firms - the expense ratio is higher but not by much.
Posted on 3/28/15 at 11:15 pm to player711
Vanguard since 1997. Bought the health care fund and it has done 
. Bought the 500 Index and it has done so-so.
Getting up in years and headed toward all Wellington and Wellesley, and take the steady 8-10% gain per year.
. Bought the 500 Index and it has done so-so. Getting up in years and headed toward all Wellington and Wellesley, and take the steady 8-10% gain per year.
Posted on 3/29/15 at 1:29 am to player711
I agree with the above posters, low cost index funds are the way to go and no one does them better than Vanguard. Mainly because John Bogle originated the idea.
The only negative? They aren't sexy. When you're at your wife's Christmas party and everyone is talking about their exotic investments, when you say "Small Cap Value Fund", they will look at you like you have shite on your chin.
But after 20 years you'll be the smartest guy in the room.
The only negative? They aren't sexy. When you're at your wife's Christmas party and everyone is talking about their exotic investments, when you say "Small Cap Value Fund", they will look at you like you have shite on your chin.
But after 20 years you'll be the smartest guy in the room.
Posted on 3/29/15 at 6:56 pm to player711
I have managed funds with brokerage firms and I have Vanguard funds. If I had known 15 years ago what I know now, I would have all my investments with Vanguard.
Posted on 3/29/15 at 8:03 pm to player711
quote:
I like cheap index funds with vanguard.
Is there any downside long term with this strategy or w/vanguard?
No.
Posted on 3/29/15 at 8:32 pm to Coeur du Tigre
To quote Happy Gilmore, Vanguard is "da coolest".
This is 100% true
. The best part is while they're all giving me funny looks I'm actually using every muscle in my body not to die laughing at the nonsense these morons are spewing.
Nothing is more awful than listening to successful people (especially successful superiors like my boss) go on and on about finances when they shouldn't be allowed to touch anything but Monopoly money. There are legit times I wonder if I owe it to my boss for giving me such a great job to sit him down one day and explain just how big of a moron he is when it comes to money.
quote:
The only negative? They aren't sexy. When you're at your wife's Christmas party and everyone is talking about their exotic investments, when you say "Small Cap Value Fund", they will look at you like you have shite on your chin.
This is 100% true
. The best part is while they're all giving me funny looks I'm actually using every muscle in my body not to die laughing at the nonsense these morons are spewing. Nothing is more awful than listening to successful people (especially successful superiors like my boss) go on and on about finances when they shouldn't be allowed to touch anything but Monopoly money. There are legit times I wonder if I owe it to my boss for giving me such a great job to sit him down one day and explain just how big of a moron he is when it comes to money.
Posted on 3/30/15 at 1:33 pm to FootballNostradamus
Are the Vanguard Target Retirement funds as good as the others or should I be looking to change that?
This post was edited on 3/30/15 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 3/30/15 at 2:40 pm to Sisyphus
Couldn't be happier with vanguard. With them since my employer started 401k plan in 88. Retired in 2010 and left everything in retirement income fund. I'm sure there are other investment firms as good as vanguard but I've never had reason to look elsewhere.
Posted on 3/30/15 at 3:22 pm to Sisyphus
quote:
Are the Vanguard Target Retirement funds as good as the others or should I be looking to change that?
Posted on 3/30/15 at 3:29 pm to fillmoregandt
If you are looking for total stock market diversification (US and International) with a gradually increasing percentage of diversified bonds as you get closer to retirement, with low fees, they are tough to beat.
Some people prefer a stock/bond mix that doesn't change. In this case, check out Vanguard's LifeStrategy series of funds. Same funds as Target Retirement but the ratio doesn't change as you get closer to retirement.
Some people prefer a stock/bond mix that doesn't change. In this case, check out Vanguard's LifeStrategy series of funds. Same funds as Target Retirement but the ratio doesn't change as you get closer to retirement.
Posted on 3/30/15 at 6:37 pm to geauxpurple
Just FYI, FRDPX with a full 5.75% load up front and the higher expense ratio's beat both VTSMX and FUSEX over the last 15 years.
And when you run a withdrawal of 3% each year... It's not even close, that active fund FRDPX smokes it.
And when you run a withdrawal of 3% each year... It's not even close, that active fund FRDPX smokes it.
Posted on 3/30/15 at 7:29 pm to player711
Some folks are moving to a managed fund to take advantage of opportunities that an index may miss.
This board got me on vanguard for some set aside money - I have ZERO complaints and love their app. I wish I would have taken advantage of the low fees 18 years ago when I started.
Disclosure - I invest lump sums and monthly amounts into target life 35 fund.
This board got me on vanguard for some set aside money - I have ZERO complaints and love their app. I wish I would have taken advantage of the low fees 18 years ago when I started.
Disclosure - I invest lump sums and monthly amounts into target life 35 fund.
This post was edited on 3/30/15 at 7:31 pm
Posted on 3/31/15 at 4:35 am to Shepherd88
quote:
Just FYI, FRDPX with a full 5.75% load up front and the higher expense ratio's beat both VTSMX and FUSEX over the last 15 years.
And when you run a withdrawal of 3% each year... It's not even close, that active fund FRDPX smokes it.
Speaking of smoking, what math are you using? Try this. VTSMX (Vanguard S&P Index) outperforms FRDPX (Franklin Managed Long Bond) in 1 Yr., 3 Yr., 5 Yr., and 10 Yr. comparisons. In the 15 Yr. comparison, the FRDPX performance is only 4.10% higher, a figure that is easily wiped out by that 5.75% hosing at purchase plus the 0.91% annual fee.
To put it another way, for every $10,000 you invest in FRDPX, after 10 years you have lost $1,630. to fees, 16.30% of your original investment.
Yeah, that's smoking alright. For Franklin.
Posted on 3/31/15 at 6:16 am to Shepherd88
quote:
Just FYI, FRDPX with a full 5.75% load up front and the higher expense ratio's beat both VTSMX and FUSEX over the last 15 years.
And when you run a withdrawal of 3% each year... It's not even close, that active fund FRDPX smokes it.
VTXMX beats FRDPX over 1,2,5, & 10 yr periods
FUSEX also is NOT the fund it was when it was beating VTSMX. It also has different management, which will change again in the next 15 years.
"The fund has changed, too. Strong inflows and market appreciation have swelled its asset base to 10 times its size five years ago. In that time, the number of stocks has increased to nearly 70 from 44, the share of assets in its top 10 holdings has dropped to less than a third from nearly half, and the average market cap has more than quadrupled to $42 billion. Taylor says the fund, which once landed in the mid-cap value Morningstar Category, still has the flexibility to invest in smaller stocks, and that the fund has gravitated to larger dividend payers because of their valuations. Still, asset growth has affected the fund."
FUSEX, like any managed fund, a very bad bet. Less than 2% of money managers continue to beat the market over time. Facts are investors have a MUCH better chance of higher returns with something like VTSMX than a very expensive managed fund like FUSEX.
ETA: Sorry for reposting TIGRE's data. I just saw that already made most of my points, but they're worth repeating....
ETA 2: TIRGE link didn't work, try this: LINK
This post was edited on 3/31/15 at 6:26 am
Posted on 3/31/15 at 6:16 am to Coeur du Tigre
FRDPX is Franklin Rising Dividend.
What he says his true, but this is classic cherry picking after the fact. If we could pick a fund today that would outperform the market (VTSMX) over the next 15 years, then we'd have something. But is FRDPX that fund? Maybe, maybe not. I think most people would be best served by sticking to the market index.
What he says his true, but this is classic cherry picking after the fact. If we could pick a fund today that would outperform the market (VTSMX) over the next 15 years, then we'd have something. But is FRDPX that fund? Maybe, maybe not. I think most people would be best served by sticking to the market index.
Posted on 3/31/15 at 7:51 am to Sigma
Thanks Sigma, I was coming here to correct the fund name and I also have the performance chart.
FRDPX has a greater value than VTSAX and FUSEX at year 2005, 2010, and 2015 when proposing investment at year 2000.
Also, Coure the fees are baked into performance so to say the 5.75% washes away the higher achieved return is false.
The std deviation between the funds is the biggest point I'll make. In 2008 the returns were FRDPX -27%, VTSAX -37%, FUSEX -37%.
And ole war your point about outflows proves the point I'm trying to make.. The average investor can't handle that type of volatility of -37%, they sell out at that point and run scared. Kudos to you however for understanding what you've invested in and not selling when times are rough.
FRDPX has a greater value than VTSAX and FUSEX at year 2005, 2010, and 2015 when proposing investment at year 2000.
Also, Coure the fees are baked into performance so to say the 5.75% washes away the higher achieved return is false.
The std deviation between the funds is the biggest point I'll make. In 2008 the returns were FRDPX -27%, VTSAX -37%, FUSEX -37%.
And ole war your point about outflows proves the point I'm trying to make.. The average investor can't handle that type of volatility of -37%, they sell out at that point and run scared. Kudos to you however for understanding what you've invested in and not selling when times are rough.
Posted on 3/31/15 at 8:07 am to Shepherd88
quote:
FRDPX has a greater value than VTSAX and FUSEX at year 2005, 2010, and 2015 when proposing investment at year 2000.
Problem is that FRDPX today is very different FRDPX in 2000. Different managers, MUCH larger = fewer options, many more holdings, different holdings, etc. and it will continue to change in the future as it grows or shrinks, gets new management, and as current management's philosophy changes as they age and gain experience. Even if the fund's philosophy was maintained, we know that the environment today and tomorrow will be different than the one in which FRDPX was successful in the early 2000's.
"Don Taylor, who calls most of the shots here, has been at the helm since mid-1996. Prior to joining this team, he worked at Fidelity Investments. Nicholas Getaz became a named comanager in February 2014. He joined the firm to work on this strategy in 2011 from Goldman Sachs Asset Management. Amritha Kasturirangan joined the team in 2012 as a dedicated analyst for this strategy from Franklin Templeton's investment operations in India. The team added another analyst, Nayan Sheth, in early 2014.
Franklin Balance Sheet Investment FRMSX manager Bruce Baughman and former Franklin Small Cap Value lead manager William Lippman are also listed as comanagers. Margaret McGee, who had been a listed manager since 1988, stepped off the fund in February 2014."
Quite a bit of recent turnover. New ideas will mean different results...maybe better, maybe worse, but we have no way of knowing and bottom line is it's as much of a gamble as the casino.
We won't know what the FRDPX of today is for 15 years. You're right that the average investor will have a hard time swallowing -37%, but he'll also have a hard time with FRDPXs -27% in the same year (less another 5.75% load if soon after investing). The real problem is the average investor has no chance of identifying the funds and managers that will beat the market over the next 15 years.
ETA: I've done 10.31% over the last 10 years vs 8.45% for total market. I'm obviously a genius at this. Would you send me your portfolio to manage for a 5% load & 1% a year? Nope, because we both know I was just lucky.
This post was edited on 3/31/15 at 8:12 am
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News