What's your weighted average expense ratio?

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.

The weighted average expense ratio of my portfolio in 2007 was:

< 0.10%
4
12%
< 0.10%
4
12%
0.30% - 0.40%
6
18%
0.40% - 0.50%
5
15%
0.40% - 0.50%
5
15%
> 0.50%
10
29%
 
Total votes: 34

INDUBITABLY
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:01 pm

What's your weighted average expense ratio?

Postby INDUBITABLY » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:34 pm

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.

livesoft
Posts: 40681
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:00 pm

Postby livesoft » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:45 pm

The expense ratios of the funds in our 401(k) plans are practically an order of magnitude off your scale.

User avatar
woof755
Posts: 3018
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:03 pm
Location: North Carolina

Postby woof755 » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:55 pm

0.19% for me.
"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

gkaplan
Posts: 5995
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Postby gkaplan » Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:03 pm

0.17%
Gordon

User avatar
EmergDoc
Posts: 10842
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:11 pm
Location: Greatest Snow On Earth
Contact:

Postby EmergDoc » Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:08 pm

livesoft wrote:The expense ratios of the funds in our 401(k) plans are practically an order of magnitude off your scale.


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.)
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

Andy7984
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 1:05 pm

Postby Andy7984 » Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:26 pm

0.21% for me

User avatar
dlpmpls
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby dlpmpls » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:10 pm

Well if you weight my IRA investment advisory fee 1%. my turnover cost/fee 1% and, ER of 1%, inflation rate for 2007 of 2% that equals 5% in total costs and isn't that what really counts, total costs.
Caution Monkey Throwing Darts

User avatar
jeff mc
Moderator
Posts: 2698
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: minnesota
Contact:

Postby jeff mc » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:37 pm

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.

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".

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. :)

User avatar
dlpmpls
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:48 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby dlpmpls » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:47 pm

I just goggled inflation rate for 2007, then assume my dollar from 2007 is now worth about 98 cents in 2008. If it gets anymore complicated then that my head hurts.

Dan
Caution Monkey Throwing Darts

User avatar
Rager1
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:03 pm

Postby Rager1 » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:49 pm

Have been focused on getting this down since 1996. Expense ratio for 2007 (including Diehards VI meeting costs, investment software, investment books, etc.) was all-time low of .14%.

Don't think I can get it much lower than that. In 1996, it was .36%.

Thanks, Jack Bogle and Vanguard.

Ed

diasurfer
Posts: 1826
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:33 pm
Location: miami-dade

Postby diasurfer » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:51 pm

0.36 with 44% under active management.

User avatar
Judsen
Posts: 860
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:29 am
Location: Birmingham, Al.

Postby Judsen » Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:03 pm

I'm at .16. thanks mainly to the low ER of VFIAX of .09!

rower30
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:00 pm
Location: Oxford, OH

Postby rower30 » Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:34 pm

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.

User avatar
ElJay
Posts: 672
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:08 pm

Postby ElJay » Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:00 am

0.20% at Vanguard, 0.61% for my 401k at T. Rowe Price. 401k is only 25% passive due to necessity and lack of options.

Overall weighted expense ratio = 0.227%

User avatar
Robert T
Posts: 2096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:40 pm
Location: 1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.5
Contact:

Postby Robert T » Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:01 am

.
Expense ratio weighted average

    US equities...............0.32
    Intl equities..............0.33
    Fixed Income............0.13
    --------------------------------
    Total Portfolio...........0.27
For a small cap and value tilted portfolio (greater on US side).

Robert
.

Chip
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:57 am

Postby Chip » Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:39 am

.06%, primarily due to only having commission expenses on individual stocks.

User avatar
zhiwiller
Posts: 1243
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:47 pm
Location: Central Florida
Contact:

Postby zhiwiller » Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:14 am

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.

bolt
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Boston

Postby bolt » Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:35 am

[removed at request of poster]

matt
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:47 pm

Postby matt » Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:40 am

I don't know and I don't care.

Derek Tinnin
Posts: 847
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: cincinnati, oh
Contact:

Postby Derek Tinnin » Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:48 am

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.
Last edited by Derek Tinnin on Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

rws
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:42 pm

Postby rws » Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:48 am

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.


We're in similar boats.

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.

User avatar
woof755
Posts: 3018
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:03 pm
Location: North Carolina

Postby woof755 » Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:50 am

rws wrote:
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.


We're in similar boats.

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

rws
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:42 pm

Postby rws » Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:33 pm

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 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.

I know I'll be moving the 401(k) in a couple years so I'm not too worried at this point.

User avatar
woof755
Posts: 3018
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:03 pm
Location: North Carolina

Postby woof755 » Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:51 pm

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.
"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

grberry
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:16 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Postby grberry » Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:49 pm

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.

delisim
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:24 am

Postby delisim » Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:02 pm

0.49%

Like others, my ER gets clobbered by my 401(k), which has almost all my investment money and somewhat poor choices from an expense ratio PoV.

LocalHero
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:44 am
Location: Iowa

0.15%

Postby LocalHero » Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:56 pm

Quite happy to starve Vanguard. Not sure how they run so cheaply but very glad that they do.
Best wishes,
JB
Remember, I'm pulling for you. We're all in this together. -- Red Green

mptfan
Posts: 3448
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:58 am

Postby mptfan » Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:28 pm

grberry wrote:I wish there was a law requiring 401K plans to allow employees to do in service rollover transactions, even if only once a year.


If your employer had a SIMPLE IRA plan, you could do an in service rollover. (assuming you have had the plan at least 2 years)


Return to “Investing - Theory, News & General”