trasmuss wrote:The expenses of Total International Admiral are three times higher than Total Stock Admiral. It is worth mentioning for those who feel expenses are important and especially those with large portfolios.
Let me put this in boldface: with expense ratios, what matters is the absolute difference, not the ratio.
If you had a checking account that was paying 0.05% interest, i.e. $5 a year on a $10,000 account, and the bank across the street put up a sign saying WE PAY 260% HIGHER INTEREST, i.e. 0.18%, i.e. $18 or $13 a year more, would you immediately run across the street and signing up, buy all-new checks, go home and enter the new routing and account numbers in every online account, etc? And that's an absolutely sure thing, $13 bucks extra every year--well, a sure thing unless the 0.18% is a teaser rate that's cut six months later.
Total International Admiral's expenses are 0.13% per year more than Total Stock Market Index.
That's chump change.
If it were a difference between 1.80% ER and 0.50% ER then sure, that should factor into your decision. But speaking as an international skeptic
who only holds 20% international, the tiny cost difference has never factored into my allocation decision. Anyone who thinks international is going to do their portfolio any detectible amount of good at all thinks it's going to do more than 0.13% worth of good.
(And, yes, I can figure out what happens if you compound 0.13% for twenty years. It's 2.632%).
Of course we all have different portfolio sizes and personal "utility functions," and if minimizing costs is absolute top priority, it is what it is. But in that case, shouldn't we be talking Schwab and not Vanguard?
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.