.... my sense is that is just not right. Nothing here I could not create myself with some diligence and Vanguard.
...but the funds are 1) too many, 2) too loaded with costs, 3) seem designed to go through his brokerage preffered relationships.
MONSFDMM wrote:He is a good guy
Highlight this text to read the answer more clearly: Charles and Susan Ellis, New York magazine, 1972.Conventional mutual funds may be the only firms in town which, if they raised the price of their merchandise, would sell more of it. The reason is that built into the price of each share is a hefty sales commission that has proved, over the years, to be a powerful incentive to a legion of hard-selling salesmen….
No-load funds in general are no better than load funds in general, but the point is—as proved year after year by Forbes magazine and others—that they are no worse either. Why anyone would want to invest $1,000, say, in a load fund, knowing that only $920 of it will go to work for him, when he could invest the same amount in a no-load and see the whole $1,000 invested, is beyond us.
HomerJ wrote:Those expense ratios are very high...
And there's way too many funds...
You can get a ton of diversification with just 3 Vanguard funds...
Total Stock Market Index - 0.05% expenses
Total International Stock Market Index - 0.16% expenses
Total Bond Market Index - 0.10% expenses
If you have $100,000 invested in Total Stock Market Index, you pay $50 a year in expenses...
Most of your stock funds above charge $1000 or more....
That's 20x as much...
That's a huge difference... Now, if those funds consistently beat TSM by 1% or more, then the fees would be worth it... But they don't... 30% of funds may beat TSM each year, but it's rarely the SAME funds. In the long run, investing in TSM is cheaper AND is more likely to give better returns.
Again, think about those expenses in these terms... Your goal is to make 5%, maybe 7%, maybe even 9% a year right? Giving away 1% of that gain to the mutual funds is huge... That's like giving away 11%-20% of your gains each year... Those international funds take away nearly 2%... That's insane.
Read some books on the wiki, and you'll find you can easily do it yourself with a passive simple investments
gym4866 wrote:WHAT IS CONSIDERED A HIGH EXPENSE FEE ?? ( I'M CHANGING SOME THINGS AROUND AND THE FIDELITY ADVISOR I'M WORKING WITH HAS ME IN (PER MY REQUEST) SOME TOTAL INDEX FUNDS WITH LOW FEE'S BUT HAS ME IN SOME FEE'S THAT ARE COMING IN AT 0.75 AND O.77....WOULD THESE BE CONSIDERED HIGH ???
Mel Lindauer wrote:OMG! Yes, yes and yes. You can own a nicely-diversified portfolio in a single low-cost Vanguard Target target date fund. This stuff isn't rocket science as your current advisor (really salesperson) apparently wants you to think.
Say goodbye to him/her and say hello to Vanguard.
Users browsing this forum: Abe, alqazaham, CABob, CJF, core4portfolio, dade, Dandy, dawg, F4mandolin, Five Scoop, georgemp, Google [Bot], N52570, novicemoney, ProdigalSon, tecmage, Traveller, tuningfork and 92 guests