Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
I just saw that the expense ratio on VBR/VSIAX, Vanguard's small cap value fund, has gone up from .10% to .12%. (Not sure what, if any, change there was for the investor shares.)
That surprised me. I haven't seen the ER on a Vanguard fund go up before. It's not much of a difference, but still not the direction one is looking for. I wonder what happened with the fund to cause this?
That surprised me. I haven't seen the ER on a Vanguard fund go up before. It's not much of a difference, but still not the direction one is looking for. I wonder what happened with the fund to cause this?
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
It would not be the first time ER's have gone up. In 2009 ER's on the Vanguard 500 fund went from (0.15% Investor shares, .07% Admiral) to (.18% and .09%).Vanguard wrote: https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insigh ... ios-062013
Unlike other mutual fund providers, Vanguard offers its funds "at cost." That means shareholders pay Vanguard only what it costs to manage a fund. Nothing more.
Which explains the 2009 situation, and soon after they did reduce the minimum balance required for Admiral class shares to a $10k minimum, and eventually the ER started being reduced again.Vanguard wrote:...if fund assets decline—as they did during the bear market from late 2007 to March 2009—fixed costs represent a larger slice of fund assets, driving up the expense ratio.
But this doesn't seem to be the case with the VBR fund:
As of 03/31/2014 Fund total net assets = $12.9 billion
At December 31, 2012, net assets = $7.8 billion ... So I don't think it's a matter of fewer assets covering a larger chunk of fixed costs in this funds case.
Here's an article about various funds with ER changes in April, but the Small-Cap Value fund is not on the list:
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insigh ... ges-042014
I would hope/expect Vanguard will make some statement as to why it changed in this fund shortly.
Last edited by JoMoney on Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham
- in_reality
- Posts: 4529
- Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:13 am
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
In April 2013, they changed indexes from MSCI to CRSP. I believe the coverage is different and perhaps the resulting operating costs are too.cb474 wrote:I just saw that the expense ratio on VBR/VSIAX, Vanguard's small cap value fund, has gone up from .10% to .12%. (Not sure what, if any, change there was for the investor shares.)
That surprised me. I haven't seen the ER on a Vanguard fund go up before. It's not much of a difference, but still not the direction one is looking for. I wonder what happened with the fund to cause this?
Hmmn, but well maybe that isn't it. I was thinking CRSP dipped further into infrequently traded stocks but that doesn't appear to be the case. Nor do there appear to be major style differences. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickferri/2 ... p-shuffle/
Last edited by in_reality on Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 16022
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
- Location: St Louis MO
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
Trading costs should show up in returns, not fund expenses
Only thing I can think of is MSCI charges higher fees than CRSP does (if they charge anything) to use their indices
Larry
Only thing I can think of is MSCI charges higher fees than CRSP does (if they charge anything) to use their indices
Larry
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
Maybe Vanguard just gave everybody a raise? Reported ERs are just a snapshot in time. I wouldn't read anything into such a small change.
- ResearchMed
- Posts: 16795
- Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:25 pm
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
The ER for the Small Cap ETF just went *down* today from .10% to .09%.
RM
RM
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
Looks like Investor Shares went from 24 to 27 basis points. Does matter for those who don't have access to preferred share classes in due to retirement plan options.cb474 wrote: (Not sure what, if any, change there was for the investor shares.)
Retirement investing is a marathon.
-
- Posts: 16022
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
- Location: St Louis MO
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
My colleague Kevin Grogan (and co author of my new book) added this when I asked him about it--he's our main contact with Vanguard
They switched to CRSP last year as a result of MSCI wanting to increase their fees. If I recall correctly, either one would've meant higher fees but CRSP was lower and was willing to sign a longer-term agreement.
They switched to CRSP last year as a result of MSCI wanting to increase their fees. If I recall correctly, either one would've meant higher fees but CRSP was lower and was willing to sign a longer-term agreement.
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
The ER went down to .09% for every Vanguard style fund, except Vanguard value, which went up to .12%. I can't believe that CSRP charges more for their small value index than for their small growth index.
I wonder if there is an error in Vanguard's system somewhere? Especially since no one has found an announcement about the higher fee.
I wonder if there is an error in Vanguard's system somewhere? Especially since no one has found an announcement about the higher fee.
- Ever Ready
- Posts: 317
- Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 2:21 pm
- Location: DC metro
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
My account showed a note that VTSAX (TSM Admiral) went from .06% to .05%. I thought it was already .05%.
It also showed thew change in VSIAX from .10% to .12%
Their most recent article on 4/28/14 shows otherwise:
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insigh ... ges-042014
It also showed thew change in VSIAX from .10% to .12%
Their most recent article on 4/28/14 shows otherwise:
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insigh ... ges-042014
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
It appears that there is no consistency to what Vanguard states the ER for small-cap value funds to be. Why is that?
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
Let's not get carried away about the real cost in dollars and cents. This change amounts to 20 cents per $1000 per year and could be smaller (suppose the expense ratio was 0.1047% and is now 0.1151%). It is apparently larger than just a simple roundoff error (as could be for a change between 0.06% to 0.05%), but could still be some marginal change.cb474 wrote:I just saw that the expense ratio on VBR/VSIAX, Vanguard's small cap value fund, has gone up from .10% to .12%. (Not sure what, if any, change there was for the investor shares.)
That surprised me. I haven't seen the ER on a Vanguard fund go up before. It's not much of a difference, but still not the direction one is looking for. I wonder what happened with the fund to cause this?
Once expense ratios get as small as some of Vanguard's, then changes are really not meaningful.
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
The prospectus actually says .09%. Once they fix their website, I assume we'll see a new thread tomorrow about how the ER went down.
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
I got the same message on my Balances and Holdings page (about the VTI going from .06 to .05) even though it was already at .05. I did not get any message about VXUS/VTIAX, but it looks to me like it went from .16 to .14.Ever Ready wrote:My account showed a note that VTSAX (TSM Admiral) went from .06% to .05%. I thought it was already .05%.
It also showed thew change in VSIAX from .10% to .12%
Their most recent article on 4/28/14 shows otherwise:
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insigh ... ges-042014
Strange.
Kalo
"When people say they have a high risk tolerance, what they really mean is that they are willing to make a lot of money." -- Ben Stein/Phil DeMuth - The Little Book of Bullet Proof Investing.
- asset_chaos
- Posts: 2629
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:13 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
I recall in the fund's latest annual report that a footnote reported the actual opeating expenses to be 9 bp, lower than the headline 10. So I'm doubly surprised because the 9 to 12 rise seems to imply Vanguard expects expenses to be a third higher in the coming year than last year. Regardless of the headline expense ratio number, I anticipate Vanguard charging whatever the costs are for the fund and giving me a fair deal. But it would be nice if they shared more explicitly the reasons for the anticipated higher costs.
Regards, |
|
Guy
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
Thanks for all the responses. As others note, my attention was drawn to the change in ER on the balance and holdings page of the website, where a little note popped up indicating that the ER on VSIAX/VBR had changed (gone up), as well as on VTSAX (went down).
*
I realize the move from .10% to .12% is not much, but it does seem like it would be nice for Vanguard to be more specific about the actual reasons for a particular change. Above people cited Vanguard's explanation on their website, which I had already seen in a link provided with the notice that the ER on VSIAX/VBR had changed. But that explanation was just a general explanation to cover all circumstances, about why ERs go up and down. It doesn't really explain this somewhat surprising move up for VSIAX/VBR in any very coherent or satisfying way.
Anyway, thanks ago for the reponses and thoughts on the matter.
*
Yes, that was my understanding at the time of the switch from MSCI to CRSP, that one of the reasons was CRSP would allow for lower expenses. But since that was back in April, 2013, wouldn't we have seen any changes to the ER due to the switch to CRSP at that time? Why is it only showing up now, a year later?larryswedroe wrote:My colleague Kevin Grogan (and co author of my new book) added this when I asked him about it--he's our main contact with Vanguard
They switched to CRSP last year as a result of MSCI wanting to increase their fees. If I recall correctly, either one would've meant higher fees but CRSP was lower and was willing to sign a longer-term agreement.
I realize the move from .10% to .12% is not much, but it does seem like it would be nice for Vanguard to be more specific about the actual reasons for a particular change. Above people cited Vanguard's explanation on their website, which I had already seen in a link provided with the notice that the ER on VSIAX/VBR had changed. But that explanation was just a general explanation to cover all circumstances, about why ERs go up and down. It doesn't really explain this somewhat surprising move up for VSIAX/VBR in any very coherent or satisfying way.
Anyway, thanks ago for the reponses and thoughts on the matter.
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
berntson wrote:The ER went down to .09% for every Vanguard style fund, except Vanguard value, which went up to .12%. I can't believe that CSRP charges more for their small value index than for their small growth index.
I wonder if there is an error in Vanguard's system somewhere? Especially since no one has found an announcement about the higher fee.
Hmm, strangely when I looked tonight the ER for VSIAX/VBR now shows as .09%. And there's no message about the ER going down. The website definitely told me yesterday that it was going up from .10% to .12%. Maybe it was an error. Odd. And not entirely confidence inspiring.stlutz wrote:The prospectus actually says .09%. Once they fix their website, I assume we'll see a new thread tomorrow about how the ER went down.
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:56 am
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
The real reason for the increase in ratio is a change in SEC reporting requirements. The actual expense has not changed and returns going forward should be the same as before for many of the funds with increased expense ratio.
Some Vanguard funds invest in BDCs Business Development Companies. Greatly simplified these are similar to private equity companies that are open to the public to purchase.
SEC now requires that when the BDCs incur expenses that mutual funds and ETFs that own these report the BDC expenses as "acquired fund expenses" as they consider the BDC a type of fund.
Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_D ... nt_Company
Vanguard explanation https://retirementplans.vanguard.com/VG ... enseRatios
Some Vanguard funds invest in BDCs Business Development Companies. Greatly simplified these are similar to private equity companies that are open to the public to purchase.
SEC now requires that when the BDCs incur expenses that mutual funds and ETFs that own these report the BDC expenses as "acquired fund expenses" as they consider the BDC a type of fund.
Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_D ... nt_Company
Vanguard explanation https://retirementplans.vanguard.com/VG ... enseRatios
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
I believe VTIAX was already .14, perhaps from at least February.Kalo wrote:
I got the same message on my Balances and Holdings page (about the VTI going from .06 to .05) even though it was already at .05. I did not get any message about VXUS/VTIAX, but it looks to me like it went from .16 to .14.
Strange.
Kalo
I experience the same thing (.10%, .12% and then .09%).cb474 wrote: Hmm, strangely when I looked tonight the ER for VSIAX/VBR now shows as .09%. And there's no message about the ER going down. The website definitely told me yesterday that it was going up from .10% to .12%. Maybe it was an error. Odd. And not entirely confidence inspiring.
- House Blend
- Posts: 4878
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 1:02 pm
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
This change happened several years ago.Rocketfella wrote:The real reason for the increase in ratio is a change in SEC reporting requirements. The actual expense has not changed and returns going forward should be the same as before for many of the funds with increased expense ratio.
Some Vanguard funds invest in BDCs Business Development Companies. Greatly simplified these are similar to private equity companies that are open to the public to purchase.
SEC now requires that when the BDCs incur expenses that mutual funds and ETFs that own these report the BDC expenses as "acquired fund expenses" as they consider the BDC a type of fund.
Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_D ... nt_Company
Vanguard explanation https://retirementplans.vanguard.com/VG ... enseRatios
In the meantime, last year, Vanguard switched the Small Value Index Fund to a new index that doesn't include BDCs (or at least, not enough to have a measurable effect on their SEC-regulated reporting of the ER).
And in fact, as noted several times since the start of this thread, the ER actually *decreased* this year.
It decreased even more substantially last year from 0.21% to 0.10% (for Admiral shares) when it shed the BDC related stocks. But this was an artifact of SEC-enforced reporting requirements, and not due to an actual decrease in operating expenses or increase in AUM.
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:56 am
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
That's interesting because Vanguard states as of April 30, 2014 states that the increase is because of BDCs. It would be nice if someone from Vanguard explained the increase.
https://advisors.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip ... StfMgIWTZR
https://advisors.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip ... StfMgIWTZR
- Random Musings
- Posts: 6770
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:24 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
Although the long-term trend has been our friend with respect to ER costs at Vanguard, and even though I try to get worked up about these 0.01-0.02% fluctuations, I just can't.
The low hanging fruit is gone, we are in the 8th inning of ER's.
RM
The low hanging fruit is gone, we are in the 8th inning of ER's.
RM
I figure the odds be fifty-fifty I just might have something to say. FZ
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
Yeah, that's what I remembered. So not that bad!House Blend wrote:It decreased even more substantially last year from 0.21% to 0.10% (for Admiral shares) when it shed the BDC related stocks.
Oh. Rats.But this was an artifact of SEC-enforced reporting requirements, and not due to an actual decrease in operating expenses or increase in AUM.
- House Blend
- Posts: 4878
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 1:02 pm
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
Pfft. This looks to me like more of the same sloppiness on Vanguard's part that people were talking about upthread. Everywhere else on the Vanguard site, including the Prospectus, seems to (now) say that VSIAX has an ER of 0.09%, not 0.12%.Rocketfella wrote:That's interesting because Vanguard states as of April 30, 2014 states that the increase is because of BDCs. It would be nice if someone from Vanguard explained the increase.
https://advisors.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip ... StfMgIWTZR
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
Yeah, that's more weirdness. That supposed "final update" on what's going on with the expense ratio changes, dated 4/30, says that the ER on VSIAX/VBR is now .12%. But the balances and holdings pages of my account still says the ER on that fund is .09%.House Blend wrote:Pfft. This looks to me like more of the same sloppiness on Vanguard's part that people were talking about upthread. Everywhere else on the Vanguard site, including the Prospectus, seems to (now) say that VSIAX has an ER of 0.09%, not 0.12%.Rocketfella wrote:That's interesting because Vanguard states as of April 30, 2014 states that the increase is because of BDCs. It would be nice if someone from Vanguard explained the increase.
https://advisors.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip ... StfMgIWTZR
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
Looking at that page now, the "final update" was updated 5/1 and says the ER on VSIAX/VBR is .09%.cb474 wrote:Yeah, that's more weirdness. That supposed "final update" on what's going on with the expense ratio changes, dated 4/30, says that the ER on VSIAX/VBR is now .12%. But the balances and holdings pages of my account still says the ER on that fund is .09%.House Blend wrote:Pfft. This looks to me like more of the same sloppiness on Vanguard's part that people were talking about upthread. Everywhere else on the Vanguard site, including the Prospectus, seems to (now) say that VSIAX has an ER of 0.09%, not 0.12%.Rocketfella wrote:That's interesting because Vanguard states as of April 30, 2014 states that the increase is because of BDCs. It would be nice if someone from Vanguard explained the increase.
https://advisors.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip ... StfMgIWTZR
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
Awesome. I love how they had to update the final update. But I do wonder if that will be the final update to the final update?stoub wrote:Looking at that page now, the "final update" was updated 5/1 and says the ER on VSIAX/VBR is .09%.cb474 wrote:Yeah, that's more weirdness. That supposed "final update" on what's going on with the expense ratio changes, dated 4/30, says that the ER on VSIAX/VBR is now .12%. But the balances and holdings pages of my account still says the ER on that fund is .09%.House Blend wrote:Pfft. This looks to me like more of the same sloppiness on Vanguard's part that people were talking about upthread. Everywhere else on the Vanguard site, including the Prospectus, seems to (now) say that VSIAX has an ER of 0.09%, not 0.12%.Rocketfella wrote:That's interesting because Vanguard states as of April 30, 2014 states that the increase is because of BDCs. It would be nice if someone from Vanguard explained the increase.
https://advisors.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip ... StfMgIWTZR
More seriously, it is not really good protocol to issue a "final upate," date it, then go ahead an change it later without any note that is has been changed. Of course, websites allow for this sort of invisible editing. But it just creates confusion.
This is a lot like what happened with the heartbleed bug, where Vanguard kept changing their statement about whether or not they were vulnerable, in their announcement on the website, without noting the changes; that left open the potential for different people to get different messages and think they had gotten "the" message. It is also similar in that Vanguard just started slapping stuff up on the website before they had the right information from whoever actually knew it.
In the case of the heartbleed bug, it's understandable somewhat (though not really excusable) that companies were caught off guard and scrambling to fix the problem and inform customers. In this case, it seems like it really should not have been a problem to know ahead of time what the new expense ratios would be and inform the people who manage the website in a timely manner.
Something like this happening once is understandable. Twice in such a similar way really reinforces the sense, for me, that at least as far as the website goes, at Vanguard the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. I'm pretty unimpressed. My bank is way better at this kind of thing.
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
Just got back from my favorite fishing hole and looked to see why all the commotion. I guess:cb474 [OP] » Mon Apr 28, 2014 4:50 am
I just saw that the expense ratio on VBR/VSIAX, Vanguard's small cap value fund, has gone up from .10% to .12%. (Not sure what, if any, change there was for the investor shares.)
That surprised me. I haven't seen the ER on a Vanguard fund go up before. It's not much of a difference, but still not the direction one is looking for. I wonder what happened with the fund to cause this?
My online statement at year end (2013) says VSIAX at 0.10% ER. Online now it says 0.09%.Vanguard wrote:Updated 5/1 to correct the effective date of the expense ratio changes for the Extended Market Index Fund (all share classes, including the ETF) to 4/28, as well as to correct that the expense ratios of the Small-Cap Value Index Fund (all share classes, including the ETF) did not increase. For Small-Cap Value’s Admiral and ETF Shares, the expense ratio declined. For Small-Cap Value’s Investor and Institutional Shares, the expense ratio did not change.
https://advisors.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip ... StfMgIWTZR
[OT comments removed by admin LadyGeek]
Landy |
Be yourself, everyone else is already taken -- Oscar Wilde
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
1) I was just curious what was going on with the expense ratio.YDNAL wrote:[OT comments removed by admin LadyGeek]
[Response to OT comments removed by admin LadyGeek]
4) I think it matters that lately Vanguard can't seem to post accurate information on their website and has to keep revising it (while not acknowledging all of the revisions they've made).
[Response to OT comments removed by admin LadyGeek]
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
[Response to OT comments removed by admin LadyGeek]cb474 wrote:[OT comments removed by admin LadyGeek]
4) I think it matters that lately Vanguard can't seem to post accurate information on their website and has to keep revising it (while not acknowledging all of the revisions they've made).
Now, on topic, I looked at Vanguard for information and posted the link - since none was provided in the original post. The link summarized the issue raised - in the VERY FIRST paragraph - the same paragraph which you snipped from my post to respond above, among other things.
Vanguard wrote:Updated 5/1 to correct the effective date of the expense ratio changes for the Extended Market Index Fund (all share classes, including the ETF) to 4/28, as well as to correct that the expense ratios of the Small-Cap Value Index Fund (all share classes, including the ETF) did not increase. For Small-Cap Value’s Admiral and ETF Shares, the expense ratio declined. For Small-Cap Value’s Investor and Institutional Shares, the expense ratio did not change.
https://advisors.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip ... StfMgIWTZR
Landy |
Be yourself, everyone else is already taken -- Oscar Wilde
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
Put it this way: do you want expenses at Vanguard to go up so they can hire more copy editors (probably attorneys) to review marketing material on their web sites? I don't. I've accepted that a certain number of errors come with low expenses, and have been with Vanguard for over 20 years so I've seen that they do eventually correct mistakes.
Warning: I am about 80% satisficer (accepting of good enough) and 20% maximizer
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
I removed some off-topic comments. As a reminder, see: Forum Policy
"We expect this forum to be a place where people can feel comfortable asking questions and where debates and discussions are conducted in civil tones...
Attacks on individuals, insults, name calling, trolling, baiting or other attempts to sow dissension are not acceptable."
- House Blend
- Posts: 4878
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 1:02 pm
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
Yes. Beyond the issue that Vanguard seems to have quality control problems when it comes to the data they push out in articles, it would be easier to forgive if they would time stamp the articles.cb474 wrote:Something like this happening once is understandable. Twice in such a similar way really reinforces the sense, for me, that at least as far as the website goes, at Vanguard the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. I'm pretty unimpressed. My bank is way better at this kind of thing.
And change the time stamp whenever an article is altered.
I first noticed this silent editing a few years ago when VG announced that Total International would switch to the FTSE Global All Cap index. In the article announcing the change on their website, they named the wrong benchmark. (As I recall, they named some other FTSE index, one that was not as broad.)
Some time later (12 hours, maybe?), perhaps after seeing a thread about it here on BH, the article was silently corrected.
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
The statement on Vanguard's site that you link to was not actually available when I started this thread. In addition the paragraph you refer to was added later to that statement to correct precisely the error that I noticed and which motivated me to start this thread. When that statement did become available, someone else provided the link to that statement in this thread and there was some discussion about it, including the way Vanguard keeps editing it and redating it (without noting the changes). You can find that discussion above, if you're interested.YDNAL wrote:Now, on topic, I looked at Vanguard for information and posted the link - since none was provided in the original post. The link summarized the issue raised - in the VERY FIRST paragraph - the same paragraph which you snipped from my post to respond above, among other things.Vanguard wrote:Updated 5/1 to correct the effective date of the expense ratio changes for the Extended Market Index Fund (all share classes, including the ETF) to 4/28, as well as to correct that the expense ratios of the Small-Cap Value Index Fund (all share classes, including the ETF) did not increase. For Small-Cap Value’s Admiral and ETF Shares, the expense ratio declined. For Small-Cap Value’s Investor and Institutional Shares, the expense ratio did not change.
https://advisors.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip ... StfMgIWTZR
Last edited by cb474 on Sun May 04, 2014 10:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
Yes, if they're going to make mistakes and edit things, it would be a lot better to note and date all the edits, so people can see what happened and not be confused about what was said when. It seems like Vanguard is more concerned about the sloppy appearance that might make, than about the clarity it would provide. Or maybe it's just incompetence on the part of whoever maintains the website. I don't really agree, as stan1 suggests, that it would cost more money to do a better job of this.House Blend wrote:Yes. Beyond the issue that Vanguard seems to have quality control problems when it comes to the data they push out in articles, it would be easier to forgive if they would time stamp the articles.cb474 wrote:Something like this happening once is understandable. Twice in such a similar way really reinforces the sense, for me, that at least as far as the website goes, at Vanguard the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. I'm pretty unimpressed. My bank is way better at this kind of thing.
And change the time stamp whenever an article is altered.
I first noticed this silent editing a few years ago when VG announced that Total International would switch to the FTSE Global All Cap index. In the article announcing the change on their website, they named the wrong benchmark. (As I recall, they named some other FTSE index, one that was not as broad.)
Some time later (12 hours, maybe?), perhaps after seeing a thread about it here on BH, the article was silently corrected.
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
Silently revising mistakes on corporate websites is standard practice. Only in a journalistic context would you expect edits to be clearly called out. It's easy to forget these are press releases, nothing more, and press releases don't have to adhere to the same standard. Non-issue. Blogging isn't Vanguard's core competency, indexing is, and so long as they keep doing a great job running their index funds I couldn't care less about typos in a press release.
- House Blend
- Posts: 4878
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 1:02 pm
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
^Yes, they can post whatever nonsense they want. Who said they can't?
I'm not suggesting that edits be called out. I'm suggesting a timestamp on every article they post; no need to spell out any corrections. Easy to automate.
I'm also sure that Vanguard will never do this--I think at least we agree on that.
Yes it's an issue. A credibility issue.
I'm not suggesting that edits be called out. I'm suggesting a timestamp on every article they post; no need to spell out any corrections. Easy to automate.
I'm also sure that Vanguard will never do this--I think at least we agree on that.
Yes it's an issue. A credibility issue.
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
From what I can see, they do have a date on every article. It just doesn't seem to update when they make an edit, which strikes me as less confusing. Otherwise you'd confuse people into thinking an article written 3 years ago was released yesterday.House Blend wrote:^Yes, they can post whatever nonsense they want. Who said they can't?
I'm not suggesting that edits be called out. I'm suggesting a timestamp on every article they post; no need to spell out any corrections. Easy to automate.
I'm also sure that Vanguard will never do this--I think at least we agree on that.
Yes it's an issue. A credibility issue.
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
Actually, it's the opposite, at least on the statement in question. Every time they edited they changed the date to the date at the time of the edit. This obscured (completely effaced) the actual date on which the statement was first posted. It also obscured all the intervening edits. So they did exactly what you're saying would confuse people, a statement intially posted on April 30, now has a date of May 2 on it. Not a big difference in this case, but who knows with other articles and statements on Vanguard's website what the real intial posting dates were.KyleAAA wrote:From what I can see, they do have a date on every article. It just doesn't seem to update when they make an edit, which strikes me as less confusing. Otherwise you'd confuse people into thinking an article written 3 years ago was released yesterday.House Blend wrote:^Yes, they can post whatever nonsense they want. Who said they can't?
I'm not suggesting that edits be called out. I'm suggesting a timestamp on every article they post; no need to spell out any corrections. Easy to automate.
I'm also sure that Vanguard will never do this--I think at least we agree on that.
Yes it's an issue. A credibility issue.
You may be right that silent edits are standard practice on corporate websites. I don't know. But I really don't see anything wrong with making the edits more transparent for the sake of clarity. And I don't think it would be any more work. In the end, to me, just because everyone does something confusing and lame isn't really an excuse. Vanguard could lead the way in transparency and honesty. That would seem to be in keeping with their brand and how they try to differentiate themselves from other mutual fund companies.
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
There's nothing "wrong" with it, I just don't see how it adds any value and by default, tasks that don't add value shouldn't be done.cb474 wrote: You may be right that silent edits are standard practice on corporate websites. I don't know. But I really don't see anything wrong with making the edits more transparent for the sake of clarity. And I don't think it would be any more work. In the end, to me, just because everyone does something confusing and lame isn't really an excuse. Vanguard could lead the way in transparency and honesty. That would seem to be in keeping with their brand and how they try to differentiate themselves from other mutual fund companies.
There may even be technical reasons why it's always been done that way, so it might be more expensive than you'd think to change it. We don't really have enough information to speak about what may or may not be difficult and/or inexpensive for Vanguard to do.
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
What's wrong with it is all the confusion it creates, this initial discussion in this thread being an example. More egregiously, in the case of the heartbleed bug, where Vanguard did the same thing (posted a statement, kepting editing it, kept not noting the edits and therefore put out several different messages about whether or not Vanguard was at any point vulnerable to the bug, which different people saw at different times), in that case, in then end it was so clear the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing at Vanguard, that I had no faith the statements on Vanguard's websites about its vulnerability to the bug were accurate. Credibility matters, as House Blend said, and it's not always just an image/marketing issue.KyleAAA wrote:There's nothing "wrong" with it, I just don't see how it adds any value and by default, tasks that don't add value shouldn't be done.cb474 wrote: You may be right that silent edits are standard practice on corporate websites. I don't know. But I really don't see anything wrong with making the edits more transparent for the sake of clarity. And I don't think it would be any more work. In the end, to me, just because everyone does something confusing and lame isn't really an excuse. Vanguard could lead the way in transparency and honesty. That would seem to be in keeping with their brand and how they try to differentiate themselves from other mutual fund companies.
There may even be technical reasons why it's always been done that way, so it might be more expensive than you'd think to change it. We don't really have enough information to speak about what may or may not be difficult and/or inexpensive for Vanguard to do.
As far as technical issues go, given that every cheap free blog out there would allow these kinds of edits, I find it hard to believe it is a technical problem on Vangaurd's end. In fact, the sort of silent edits that Vanguard already did, if you followed them, show that they could do the sort of more transparent edits I'm talking about. I'm talking about different content in the edits, not anything technically different from what Vanguard has already done. So I really don't buy the technical limitation claim.
As for cost, I think Vanguard is spending more time making mistakes and correcting them, than it would take to just do a better job in the first place. If the website people at Vanguard and the behind the scenes people with the correct information were communicating better, I think it would be more efficient and save money. Anyway, they are editing the statements; they're putting the time into it; it doesn't take more time to make deceptive edits than clear ones, they're just different. So I really don't buy the cost issue at all either.
I don't see the need (or benefit) of making up excuses for Vanguard. If they're doing something poorly or incompetently, then they need to deal with that.
Re: Vanguard's Small Cap Value Fund Expense Ratio Goes Up
I don't quite understand what you mean when you say "transparent edits." Are you just saying they should put an "last edited on: " date at the bottom of the article? Of course they could do that. But the date at the top of the post would also be changed automatically, so those two values would always be the same without (likely) code changes so I don't see how it's helpful at all. If you're saying they should leave a list of edits on the bottom of the post, they could certainly do that, but I would argue strongly against it on usability grounds.cb474 wrote: What's wrong with it is all the confusion it creates, this initial discussion in this thread being an example. More egregiously, in the case of the heartbleed bug, where Vanguard did the same thing (posted a statement, kepting editing it, kept not noting the edits and therefore put out several different messages about whether or not Vanguard was at any point vulnerable to the bug, which different people saw at different times), in that case, in then end it was so clear the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing at Vanguard, that I had no faith the statements on Vanguard's websites about its vulnerability to the bug were accurate. Credibility matters, as House Blend said, and it's not always just an image/marketing issue.
As far as technical issues go, given that every cheap free blog out there would allow these kinds of edits, I find it hard to believe it is a technical problem on Vangaurd's end. In fact, the sort of silent edits that Vanguard already did, if you followed them, show that they could do the sort of more transparent edits I'm talking about. I'm talking about different content in the edits, not anything technically different from what Vanguard has already done. So I really don't buy the technical limitation claim.
As for cost, I think Vanguard is spending more time making mistakes and correcting them, than it would take to just do a better job in the first place. If the website people at Vanguard and the behind the scenes people with the correct information were communicating better, I think it would be more efficient and save money. Anyway, they are editing the statements; they're putting the time into it; it doesn't take more time to make deceptive edits than clear ones, they're just different. So I really don't buy the cost issue at all either.
I don't see the need (or benefit) of making up excuses for Vanguard. If they're doing something poorly or incompetently, then they need to deal with that.
I just don't think transparency has much value in this case. The heartbleed situation was SLIGHTLY different, but not really, because in that situation a reasonable person would use 3rd party sources to check the sites they use, anyway. And of COURSE the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing. That's true at every company of any size all the time. The marketing and PR people don't know what's going on in engineering and probably vice versa. I understand your argument, but I just don't think it's a big deal. I don't even agree that what they are doing is poor or incompetent. In fact, I think they way they are doing thing is BETTER from a usability perspective than what you suggest, but that's a different argument entirely. Vanguard is good at indexing, and that's good enough for me.