Started By
Message

Funds vs Individual Stocks

Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:03 am
Posted by Lsut81
Member since Jun 2005
80087 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:03 am
My goal for the new year has been to actively learn more about investing and finance... So my dumb question of the day.

Can someone give me a quick breakdown of why one would choose to purchase individual stock or funds over the other for long term investments?

My thinking:
Stocks: Great if they are high dividend or if you plan on selling off of big news (Not long term in my mind)
Funds: Great because of diversification and likely to be more historically predictable because of balance.

Conclusion:
Im guessing most will say a good mix of purchasing individual stocks is what the big investors on here would recommend.

TIA
Posted by deNYEd
Houston
Member since Jul 2007
9689 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:17 am to
Like everything in life it would depend mostly on your goals and the amount of risk willing to take. You seem to have asked a question then set out to answer it yourself.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89472 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:27 am to
quote:

Can someone give me a quick breakdown of why one would choose to purchase individual stock or funds over the other for long term investments?


When I buy individual stocks, I'm purchasing a share of ownership in that company - because I believe it will grow in value, pay a good dividend or both. I'm buying a future income stream with today's cash.

When I buy mutual funds, which all of my retirement investing is - I'm picking fund managers, essentially, whom I trust to reliably track an index and provide a fairly predictable and stable price - increasing at a fairly predictable rate, between the time I buy and the time I need to transfer that value to an annuity, bonds or some other income producing vehicle to provide a steady income in retirement.

While similar, the goals are subtly different because of the outcome.

Unless you're really passionate about particular sectors or just want a little more say so in your portfolio, a good mutual fund, or mix of funds from Fidelity, Vanguard, Janus, whatever, is going to outperform most people's mix of stocks. It takes less time and concentration, but it surrenders control to the fund manager.

The single most important thing you can do is to commit to investing.

Pick a vehicle, pick a fund, or pick a brokerage to buy your stocks. Send money in regularly, buy regularly (so you can dollar cost average), reinvest dividends and allow time to work its magic.

Minimal exposure over 40 years in the market at large will outperform almost any "smart" focused package of investments over 20 years - that's just a fact. So, the longer you wait, the further you fall behind.

My personal recommendation for someone who may only have a 401K at work, is to start your own IRA with Fidelity and commit to something you can absolutely live with - $50 a month, $75 a month, whatever. Pick an S&P 500 fund (or a balance of funds that approximates that yield), and re-evaluate how much you're committing every 6 to 12 months - and adjust upwards as you feel more comfortable.

Don't cash out - don't worry about downturns (the market...always...goes...back...up) and adjust your allocation/distribution no more than quarterly - perhaps 6 to 12 months as well.

If you can do this for 30 to 40 years, you cannot avoid being wealthy - period.
This post was edited on 3/6/14 at 10:28 am
Posted by jimbeam
University of LSU
Member since Oct 2011
75703 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:58 am to
quote:

Ace Midnight
everything that guy said
Posted by slackster
Houston
Member since Mar 2009
84605 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:50 am to
quote:

Im guessing most will say a good mix of purchasing individual stocks is what the big investors on here would recommend.


I'm not exactly sure that is the the real sentiment of the board. IMO, most would say index funds, particularly ETFs, are the most logical choice for the basic investor. Super low fees and plenty of diversification.

quote:

Stocks: Great if they are high dividend or if you plan on selling off of big news (Not long term in my mind)


This shite is really beginning to irk me. So many people have been force-fed dividend payers in an effort to chase yield that I believe we are going to see a ton of retail investors get slammed if rates rise at any aggressive clip. This low-rate environment has led people to stop asking the right questions. There is a reason the BP Prudhoe Bay trust pays out a 12+% dividend, but people don't even ask, all they see are the checks and the profit as people inflate these stocks in their search of yield. Someone is going to be left holding the bag on these things if rates rise as quickly as they fell from mid-2007.

/rant.
Posted by Lsut81
Member since Jun 2005
80087 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 12:10 pm to
quote:

Ace Midnight


Thanks for the info...

quote:

a good mutual fund, or mix of funds from Fidelity, Vanguard, Janus, whatever, is going to outperform most people's mix of stocks


Yeah and that was what I was getting at. Seems like the diversification of a Fund would constantly outperform the picking of individual stocks... Well unless you go and buy those stocks within the portfolio on your own, then Id assume the one time purchase price would be less than the fees of the fund???

quote:

The single most important thing you can do is to commit to investing.


Agree 100%... You are preaching to the choir. Within the next 2 weeks, I will pass 1 yrs worth of salary in investments. Getting an early jump on the 2 times by 40yrs old goal.
This post was edited on 3/6/14 at 12:11 pm
Posted by foshizzle
Washington DC metro
Member since Mar 2008
40599 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 12:18 pm to
quote:

most would say index funds, particularly ETFs, are the most logical choice for the basic investor


I am firmly in this camp.

The thing is, most people are deluding themselves when picking stocks. If you don't have a few thousand pages of notes, records of investor conference calls, industry writeups, etc. then you are probably just guessing. Unless you're running money for a fund in the hundreds of millions, the amount of work needed to know a stock isn't worth the edge you might get.

Most people don't even bother to read the 10-K though, much less do any real work trying to understand the company. They just say "Hey, the dividend yield is 9%, sign me up!" Hm, maybe there's a reason why it is so high? Might want to find out first.

There's probably not much wrong with guessing for entertainment value although you are taking more risk than you have to vs. just buying the market.

Might as well just buy ETF's and indexes in various markets and be done with it.
Posted by Lsut81
Member since Jun 2005
80087 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 12:43 pm to
quote:

I am firmly in this camp.



So follow-up, why would I want ETF's over Funds???

So I have a Vanguard account and own about 5 funds over three different accounts (Roth, IRA, and General Account)

Secondly... Functional differences between ETFs/Funds in regards to taxes and the likes

TIA
Posted by GoCrazyAuburn
Member since Feb 2010
34858 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 12:50 pm to
ETF's are funds. Exchange-Traded Funds.
This post was edited on 3/6/14 at 12:51 pm
Posted by Lsut81
Member since Jun 2005
80087 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 1:08 pm to
quote:

ETF's are funds. Exchange-Traded Funds.


But why better than just "Funds"


I believe ETF buy/sell executes real time where Funds take a day to happen... But what are the other differences. Why is one better than the other? Tax Differences? Dividend Differences? ETC?
Posted by slackster
Houston
Member since Mar 2009
84605 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 1:09 pm to
Investopedia.com can be your friend while you wade through the waters of early investing.

ETFs are extrange traded funds that essentially invest in an index and can be traded throughout the day. The fact that they can be readily traded has opened the door for a wild variety of ETFs that follow some extremely obscure indices, but that is irrelevant here. More importantly, ETFs that follow the S&P 500 and other populac indicies are exceptionally cheap on fees because they are not actively managed - no one is picking stocks to be in the ETF. Instead, the ETF offers exposure to all of the stocks in an index without bias.

For instance, Vanguard offers 3 options for the S&P 500 index.

The ETF is VOO and has a .05% expense ratio. $10,000 would have grown to $14,938.17 in 3 years

The mutual fund investor share class is VFINX and has a .17% expense ratio, and $10,000 would have grown to $14,884.53 in 3 years.

The mutual fund admiral share class is VFIAX and has an expense ratio of .05%, but has a $10,000 minimum investment threshhold. $10,000 would have grown to $14,937.91 in 3 years.

Posted by Lsut81
Member since Jun 2005
80087 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 1:11 pm to
quote:

The mutual fund admiral share class is VFIAX and has an expense ratio of .05%


Thats one fund that I own... I'm just wondering if I should keep throwing money into the Funds that I own or start buying some ETFs too.
Posted by GoCrazyAuburn
Member since Feb 2010
34858 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 1:11 pm to
What do you mean by just "funds"? Are you talking about Mutual funds?


ETA: Looking back, I would assume that is what you are talking about. Here is a good article on the differences.

ETF's vs. Mutual Funds
This post was edited on 3/6/14 at 1:15 pm
Posted by austiger
Austin
Member since Apr 2012
743 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 2:20 pm to
foshizzle is exactly right.

Most of the time, when you buy an individual equity you are buying it from someone who is more informed than you are about the stock.

I deluded myself into thinking otherwise years ago and now have a vast majority of my holdings in index funds that I add to monthly. It simplifies my life tremendously.

The other problem with picking individual stocks is that you very likely will not optimize your returns by doing that. In my case, I loaded up on dividend paying stocks and I was significantly overweight large cap value -- which made me underperform the broader market last year. I didn't intend to be so defensive, but I was by virtue of my strategy.

If I had it to do over again, I'd put 80% of my holdings in some index funds that match the broader market. I'd use the remaining 20% to pay but NO MORE than that. Set a baseline portfolio and play with a small portion if you must. You'll be happier this way.
Posted by Boudin
Lafayette
Member since Oct 2006
10133 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 2:33 pm to
quote:

Unless you're really passionate about particular sectors or just want a little more say so in your portfolio, a good mutual fund, or mix of funds from Fidelity, Vanguard, Janus, whatever, is going to outperform most people's mix of stocks. It takes less time and concentration, but it surrenders control to the fund manager.




It takes less time and concentration?
Posted by Shepherd88
Member since Dec 2013
4578 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 2:49 pm to
ETF's are generally passively managed meaning there is no buying/selling inside the funds portfolio.

Mutual Funds are typically actively managed meaning the managers/sell the investments inside of them whenever they want.

I'm sure you can have both but thats typically the difference. Also for funds your gonna pick up inherited cost basis of when the fund bought the individual investments vs you purcahsing an individual stock.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89472 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 3:08 pm to
quote:

It takes less time and concentration?


I stand by it. Once I pick a fund manager, I'm delegating that to him.

It takes more time and concentration when you own individual stocks - you have to watch individual earnings reports, read 10-K, dividends, news affecting the company, news affecting the sector, technology changes, a thousand things to be a responsible shareholder.

With a fund - you're generally tracking an index. Buy 2 funds - generally you're tracking 2 indices. I'm not saying it is fire and forget, as funds change management and the prospectus changes over time - but far, far less effort, once you're past the initial research, screening and selection phase (which is also fairly extensive when picking individual stocks - particularly a diversivied portfolio of them).

I didn't think that particular contention would be all that radical or debatable...
This post was edited on 3/6/14 at 3:10 pm
Posted by Boudin
Lafayette
Member since Oct 2006
10133 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 3:30 pm to
quote:

It takes more time and concentration when you own individual stocks - you have to watch individual earnings reports, read 10-K, dividends, news affecting the company, news affecting the sector, technology changes, a thousand things to be a responsible shareholder.

Yea, I thought you meant that in regards to individual stocks

Eta:

Also, what funds are you/this board contributing to? I'd like to see what's out there and start contributing to more than just the two that I'm currently throwing money at.
This post was edited on 3/6/14 at 3:34 pm
Posted by Overbrook
Member since May 2013
6075 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 3:32 pm to
If you learn the market, you can do better buying individual stocks.

But it's sort of a moot point, because employer 401Ks and 403Bs dont' let you do that (at least mine never have). And they don't let you short stocks, which really makes things unfair (and which some crooked hedge funds have taken huge advantage of as they've looted retirement funds).
Posted by Lsut81
Member since Jun 2005
80087 posts
Posted on 3/6/14 at 3:34 pm to
So if I'm purchasing and sitting for 20+yrs, just pick vanguard funds and let it ride?

No reason to pick the vanguard ETF's unless I am going to watch and try to make moves on them based on market swings and the likes?

Correct in thinking?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram