What's your weighted average expense ratio?
-
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:01 pm
What's your weighted average expense ratio?
I'm mostly finished with selecting the funds I will be investing in, and my spreadsheet has worked out my total expense ratio (over all funds, weighted by % of my assets invested in each) will be around 0.15%. What do the rest of you Bogleheads have in the way of overall portfolio expense ratio?
Calculate your average by multiplying each fund's expense ratio by the percentage of your assets invested in it. Sum the results. Include adviser fees and brokerage fees where applicable.
Calculate your average by multiplying each fund's expense ratio by the percentage of your assets invested in it. Sum the results. Include adviser fees and brokerage fees where applicable.
- White Coat Investor
- Posts: 17409
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:11 pm
- Location: Greatest Snow On Earth
Or an order of magnitude less (I love the TSP!) Overall 0.18% for me, getting less all the time as my TSP grows (actually shrinks this week.)livesoft wrote:The expense ratios of the funds in our 401(k) plans are practically an order of magnitude off your scale.
1) Invest you must 2) Time is your friend 3) Impulse is your enemy |
4) Basic arithmetic works 5) Stick to simplicity 6) Stay the course
did you also add in your 'negative costs' of any interest and capital gains? if you add inflation in to your costs, you need to add in everything. historically, ERs are true fees, and ignore inflation erosion, gains, losses. but maybe you've developed a new metric: RER (real expense ratio), as opposed to the historically used NER (nominal ER), or (N)ER, or just "ER".dlpmpls wrote:Well if you weight my ...inflation rate for 2007 of 2% that equals 5% in total costs and isn't that what really counts, total costs.
and i guess the vikings nominal record this year of 8-8 can be revised to more like a 'real' 10-6 with point inflation that we've seen.
I don't look at total cost but a case by case basis. Most of my funds that I can control are in Vanguard, T.Roweprice and American funds (most in Vanguard). My 401K is miserable and I can't control it per say, so I stick to index funds with too high a cost but hey, I avoid the volatility of an actively managed fund run by who knows.
That said, I look for funds that return a good solid and stable return for what I pay. All three do just that. The American funds have to be considered "long term" to work around the load, though. Historically, they have held to their positives in excellent fashion, like Vanguard.
You can probably argue that you don't chase low cost for the same reason you don't chase high returns or just tax efficiencies, too. Being too myopic on any of the three can hurt you in the end. Moderation is the best policy. I'll gladly pay taxes on good returns, reasonable expenses on a sector fund (healthcare) and avoid flash in the pan high return micro market funds.
Another issue is fund family diversification. I don't like all my eggs in one basket. Janus taught me that years ago. I love Vanguard, don't get me wrong, but I like the relavance of mixed market information. That's why I'm here.
That said, I look for funds that return a good solid and stable return for what I pay. All three do just that. The American funds have to be considered "long term" to work around the load, though. Historically, they have held to their positives in excellent fashion, like Vanguard.
You can probably argue that you don't chase low cost for the same reason you don't chase high returns or just tax efficiencies, too. Being too myopic on any of the three can hurt you in the end. Moderation is the best policy. I'll gladly pay taxes on good returns, reasonable expenses on a sector fund (healthcare) and avoid flash in the pan high return micro market funds.
Another issue is fund family diversification. I don't like all my eggs in one basket. Janus taught me that years ago. I love Vanguard, don't get me wrong, but I like the relavance of mixed market information. That's why I'm here.
Am I an anomaly here or are only the rock bottom people posting? My average expense ratio per M* is 0.49%. This is likely due to the funds in my 401k. The S&P index in there is 0.39% itself and it gets worse from there. If I had a little more bonds (PTRAX is my choice there), I'd tip over the 0.5% mark.
-
- Posts: 864
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:16 pm
- Location: cincinnati, oh
For the comment on moderation - when it comes to expenses, the overwhelming evidence is that, in a diversified portfolio, performance is inversely related to cost.
The one caveat is that you can achieve an incredibly low ER with an all index component portfolio, but you incur some hidden costs with index funds because of the priority of low tracking error.
The one caveat is that you can achieve an incredibly low ER with an all index component portfolio, but you incur some hidden costs with index funds because of the priority of low tracking error.
Last edited by Derek Tinnin on Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
We're in similar boats.zhiwiller wrote:Am I an anomaly here or are only the rock bottom people posting? My average expense ratio per M* is 0.49%. This is likely due to the funds in my 401k. The S&P index in there is 0.39% itself and it gets worse from there. If I had a little more bonds (PTRAX is my choice there), I'd tip over the 0.5% mark.
From M*:
401(k): 1.14%
IRA: 0.21%
Total ER: 0.55%
The 401(k) only offers managed funds with ERs from 0.80 to 1.31%, where closer to 1.31 is the norm. My IRA is currently in a target retirement fund and I moved from T.Rowe (0.74% ER) to Vanguard this year. So, I'm getting there.
rws wrote:We're in similar boats.zhiwiller wrote:Am I an anomaly here or are only the rock bottom people posting? My average expense ratio per M* is 0.49%. This is likely due to the funds in my 401k. The S&P index in there is 0.39% itself and it gets worse from there. If I had a little more bonds (PTRAX is my choice there), I'd tip over the 0.5% mark.
From M*:
401(k): 1.14%
IRA: 0.21%
Total ER: 0.55%
The 401(k) only offers managed funds with ERs from 0.80 to 1.31%, where closer to 1.31 is the norm. My IRA is currently in a target retirement fund and I moved from T.Rowe (0.74% ER) to Vanguard this year. So, I'm getting there.
Brutal. Pick the fund in your 401(k) that has the lowest ER and still fits in your asset allocation, and do everything else in your IRA.
(Trouble is you probably have much more money in your 401(k) than IRA)
"By singing in harmony from the same page of the same investing hymnal, the Diehards drown out market noise." |
|
--Jason Zweig, quoted in The Bogleheads' Guide to Investing
I would, but I'll sacrifice ER for diversification. If I put it all in the two under 1% ER fund options, my 401(k) would have too much in bonds (a third of which are mortgage related) and a small handful of large-cap US stocks which also significantly overweight financials. Putting that percentage of my portfolio in one or two managed funds feels more like a horse race than a retirement strategy.woof755 wrote:Brutal. Pick the fund in your 401(k) that has the lowest ER and still fits in your asset allocation, and do everything else in your IRA.
I know I'll be moving the 401(k) in a couple years so I'm not too worried at this point.
My dad has one of those 401(k)s. Avg ER is 1.2%. Funds like "global allocation" which is nothing short of a free for all--global is not referring to geography, but rather cash, equities, bonds, you name it.
And the international fund ERs, omigoodness.
And the international fund ERs, omigoodness.
"By singing in harmony from the same page of the same investing hymnal, the Diehards drown out market noise." |
|
--Jason Zweig, quoted in The Bogleheads' Guide to Investing
Greater than 75% of funds in 401K drives my ER over 0.5%. And I'm choosing low cost funds in it, but the only low cost options are a "stable value" (cash/money market) at 0.25% and S&P 500 index at 0.35%, and that isn't enough diversification, even with the other accounts.
I wish there was a law requiring 401K plans to allow employees to do in service rollover transactions, even if only once a year.
I wish there was a law requiring 401K plans to allow employees to do in service rollover transactions, even if only once a year.