New for Vanguard!

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.
Post Reply
nkotbbh
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:34 pm

New for Vanguard!

Post by nkotbbh » Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:59 am

So this morning I saw 2 new funds for vanguard Vanguard Global Wellington™ Fund and Vanguard Global Wellesley® Income Fund seems like the perfect asset allocation at only $20.00 a share. What do you guys think? Would you buy or not? The only thing is that I am not familiar with mutual funds and I guess you need $3000 for investor shares $50000 for admiral shares which I do not have either way. Unless you/I can buy only a certain amount is that possible?

gpo account 2
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 1:46 am

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by gpo account 2 » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:05 am

$3,000 minimum. There is no level below Investor Shares.

nkotbbh
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:34 pm

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by nkotbbh » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:25 am

gpo account 2 wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:05 am
$3,000 minimum. There is no level below Investor Shares.
Does that mean I have to buy $3000 worth I cant buy just a few?

User avatar
flamesabers
Posts: 1719
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:05 pm
Location: Rochester, MN

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by flamesabers » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:28 am

nkotbbh wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:59 am
So this morning I saw 2 new funds for vanguard Vanguard Global Wellington™ Fund and Vanguard Global Wellesley® Income Fund seems like the perfect asset allocation at only $20.00 a share. What do you guys think? Would you buy or not? The only thing is that I am not familiar with mutual funds and I guess you need $3000 for investor shares $50000 for admiral shares which I do not have either way. Unless you/I can buy only a certain amount is that possible?
If you're looking to invest in Vanguard's mutual funds, the bare minimum required to invest is $1,000 and that is for a limited number of funds such as the STAR Fund (VGSTX) and the various Target Retirement Funds. Otherwise you should invest with a different broker that has lower minimum investment requirements.
nkotbbh wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:25 am
gpo account 2 wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:05 am
$3,000 minimum. There is no level below Investor Shares.
Does that mean I have to buy $3000 worth I cant buy just a few?
That's correct. If you just want to buy a few shares (that happens to be under $3,000) you would have to buy an ETF.

Per Vanguard:
No minimum initial investment requirement
You don't need thousands of dollars to start investing in an ETF. You only need enough money to cover the price of 1 share, which can generally range from $50 to a few hundred dollars.
P.S. You can only buy ETFs in full shares (not fractions).
https://investor.vanguard.com/etf/fees
Last edited by flamesabers on Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

GLState
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:38 am

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by GLState » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:31 am

Is it the Wellington and Wellesley names that are the attraction? What if they were the Smith and Jones funds? As of now, they are just two new funds with familiar names with no holdings or history. I wouldn't be in any hurry to buy. I'd rather buy a Target or Life Strategy Fund.
Last edited by GLState on Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

jalbert
Posts: 3241
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by jalbert » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:34 am

seems like the perfect asset allocation at only $20.00 a share.
Share price is irrelevant other than as a relative measure. If the share price goes from $20 to $22 then you know it appreciated by 10%. But had they started it at $40/share, it just means you would own half as many shares for any particular dollar value of your holding, and the same 10% appreciation would send it to $44/share.
Index fund investor since 1987.

User avatar
Sheepdog
Posts: 5045
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:05 pm
Location: Indiana, retired 1998 at age 65

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by Sheepdog » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:38 am

GLState wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:31 am
Is it the Wellington and Wellesley names that are the attraction? What if they were the Smith and Jones funds? As of now, they are just two new funds with familiar names with no holdings or history. I wouldn't be in any hurry to buy.
It is Wellington Management, the firm which manages the Wellington and Wellesley funds. Some would think that because they have been so successful with those that they have the expertise to add international bonds and stocks.
Vanguard and Wellington Management have a long and successful history—in partnership and individually. In fact, Wellington Management has been managing Vanguard Wellington Fund (Vanguard’s first mutual fund) since its inception in 1929 and Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund since its inception in 1970.
Additional comment not on this subject. It is that purchasing now is in the subscription period. Quote:
Subscription period

From October 18 through November 1, 2017, both funds are in a subscription period. During that time, all Investor Shares are available for $20 per share, and all Admiral Shares are available for $25 per share. In addition, all of the money in both funds is held temporarily in money market investments.

Starting on November 2, the funds will use the money gathered during the subscription period to begin investing in stocks and bonds according to their respective target allocations. At that time, you can expect to see share prices begin to fluctuate based on how each fund’s underlying investments are performing.
People should not say everything they think. They should think about everything they say.

User avatar
celia
Posts: 7892
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:32 am
Location: SoCal

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by celia » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:43 am

seems like the perfect asset allocation at only $20.00 a share.
The share price is irrelevant. If the share price was 2 cents or $200, it still wouldn't matter. You would just get more or fewer shares for your $3,000 investment. WHAT the fund owns is more important than the share price.
Last edited by celia on Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Chuck
Posts: 2053
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 12:19 pm

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by Chuck » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:47 am

If you don't have $3000 to invest, your money should go into a savings account.

ResearchMed
Posts: 6587
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by ResearchMed » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:48 am

When a new fund is in the "subscription" phase, and all monies are held in a money market type of account, is there any advantage to putting money in then, vs. waiting for, say, the first day of real activity, or perhaps the day before that?

Also, are the holdings the same, but just in different equity/bond proportions, or actually different holdings?

RM
This signature is a placebo. You are in the control group.

lack_ey
Posts: 6575
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by lack_ey » Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:53 am

Previous thread, still active:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=224317&newpost=3577751
GLState wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:31 am
Is it the Wellington and Wellesley names that are the attraction? What if they were the Smith and Jones funds? As of now, they are just two new funds with familiar names with no holdings or history. I wouldn't be in any hurry to buy. I'd rather buy a Target or Life Strategy Fund.
Same firm, which means something with regards to culture and underlying analysts, same named fixed-income managers, same investment objectives, and very similar mandates with respect to the balanced stock/bond allocations.

It's a lot more than the fund names.

What may be the biggest difference, really, is the expense ratios. At least to begin with before they can attract more assets, they're at 0.32%/0.42% and 0.35%/0.45% for Wellesley and Wellington investor/admiral compared to 0.15%/0.22% and 0.16%/0.25% for the domestic versions. That alone I think should deter people.

ResearchMed wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:48 am
Also, are the holdings the same, but just in different equity/bond proportions, or actually different holdings?
Different portfolios, different holdings, different equity managers. You can check for example a list of equity holdings for both domestic funds and find a lot of similarities but some notable differences. As of the end of June, Bank of America was Wellington's third-largest holding but was not held at all by Wellesley Income.

User avatar
celia
Posts: 7892
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:32 am
Location: SoCal

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by celia » Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:00 pm

nkotbbh wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:59 am
The only thing is that I am not familiar with mutual funds and I guess you need $3000 for investor shares $50000 for admiral shares which I do not have either way.
Nkot, I assume you are young and just starting out. Maybe you have your first full-time job that pays you a little more than you need for living expenses. You should know that the criteria that has the most impact on your future wealth is the AMOUNT of money you invest when you are young. That is a lot more important than WHAT you invest in because you will have a lot more time for things to compound than someone who starts 10 or 20 years later. Once you hit the point that the yearly growth on your investments is more than what you add to the account each year, you will see the power of compounding--not only are your contributions getting dividends, but the (former) dividends then get dividends.

User avatar
SquawkIdent
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:14 pm

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by SquawkIdent » Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:17 pm


nkotbbh
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:34 pm

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by nkotbbh » Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:21 pm

flamesabers wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:28 am
nkotbbh wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:59 am
So this morning I saw 2 new funds for vanguard Vanguard Global Wellington™ Fund and Vanguard Global Wellesley® Income Fund seems like the perfect asset allocation at only $20.00 a share. What do you guys think? Would you buy or not? The only thing is that I am not familiar with mutual funds and I guess you need $3000 for investor shares $50000 for admiral shares which I do not have either way. Unless you/I can buy only a certain amount is that possible?
If you're looking to invest in Vanguard's mutual funds, the bare minimum required to invest is $1,000 and that is for a limited number of funds such as the STAR Fund (VGSTX) and the various Target Retirement Funds. Otherwise you should invest with a different broker that has lower minimum investment requirements.
nkotbbh wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:25 am
gpo account 2 wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:05 am
$3,000 minimum. There is no level below Investor Shares.
Does that mean I have to buy $3000 worth I cant buy just a few?
That's correct. If you just want to buy a few shares (that happens to be under $3,000) you would have to buy an ETF.

Per Vanguard:
No minimum initial investment requirement
You don't need thousands of dollars to start investing in an ETF. You only need enough money to cover the price of 1 share, which can generally range from $50 to a few hundred dollars.
P.S. You can only buy ETFs in full shares (not fractions).
https://investor.vanguard.com/etf/fees
Thanks for the reply, I guess ill hold off on it or see if an ETF is ever available. Currently I am only doing ETF's a the current time.

nkotbbh
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:34 pm

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by nkotbbh » Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:24 pm

celia wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:00 pm
nkotbbh wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:59 am
The only thing is that I am not familiar with mutual funds and I guess you need $3000 for investor shares $50000 for admiral shares which I do not have either way.
Nkot, I assume you are young and just starting out. Maybe you have your first full-time job that pays you a little more than you need for living expenses. You should know that the criteria that has the most impact on your future wealth is the AMOUNT of money you invest when you are young. That is a lot more important than WHAT you invest in because you will have a lot more time for things to compound than someone who starts 10 or 20 years later. Once you hit the point that the yearly growth on your investments is more than what you add to the account each year, you will see the power of compounding--not only are your contributions getting dividends, but the (former) dividends then get dividends.
Hi Celia, yes I am just starting out have read 4 books total on investing although on the verge of being 32 yrs old, Just saw it as a 2 fund portfolio 2/3 stocks 1/3 bonds and vice a versa, currently investing in ETF's.

User avatar
Toons
Posts: 12789
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Hills of Tennessee

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by Toons » Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:26 pm

2 options
Initial Purchase
150 Investor Shares =3,000
2000 Admiral Shares=50,000
:happy
"One does not accumulate but eliminate. It is not daily increase but daily decrease. The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity" –Bruce Lee

nkotbbh
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:34 pm

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by nkotbbh » Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:33 pm

Toons wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:26 pm
2 options
Initial Purchase
150 Investor Shares =3,000
2000 Admiral Shares=50,000
:happy
exactly and can not do that too much money down which I currently do not have.

Makeitlast85
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:14 am

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by Makeitlast85 » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:24 am

Does anyone know how much overlap there will be in global wellington between the US stocks it will hold and the US stocks held in the US version of Wellington? Will they be the same stocks - only in smaller amounts. :?

User avatar
Sheepdog
Posts: 5045
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:05 pm
Location: Indiana, retired 1998 at age 65

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by Sheepdog » Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:18 pm

Makeitlast85 wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:24 am
Does anyone know how much overlap there will be in global wellington between the US stocks it will hold and the US stocks held in the US version of Wellington? Will they be the same stocks - only in smaller amounts. :?
I do not know. I expect that because the management teams for the Global editions are different, there will be different stock selections. There may be some duplicate stocks possible if they fit their program.
People should not say everything they think. They should think about everything they say.

Finridge
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:27 pm

Re: New for Vanguard!

Post by Finridge » Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:53 pm

If you are young and just starting out, I'd suggest not using a "blended fund" (a fund that mixes bonds and stocks) but rather mixing and matching 100% stock and 100% bond funds as needed to get the allocation you want. (The only exception to this would be going with a Vanguard Target Retirement Fund, which will reallocate more and more into bonds as the years go by.)

Also, if you are young and investing the funds for the long term, I'd suggest an asset allocation that is heavily tilted towards stock. Personally, I'd go with 100% stock, but that's me--might not be right for you. But you can regardless of your how you decide to allocate, I'd suggest going with three funds:
- Vanguard Total Stock Market
- Vanguard Total International Stock Market
- Vanguard Total Bond Market

TdF fan
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:35 pm

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by TdF fan » Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:10 pm

Sheepdog wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:18 pm
Makeitlast85 wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:24 am
Does anyone know how much overlap there will be in global wellington between the US stocks it will hold and the US stocks held in the US version of Wellington? Will they be the same stocks - only in smaller amounts. :?
I do not know. I expect that because the management teams for the Global editions are different, there will be different stock selections. There may be some duplicate stocks possible if they fit their program.
According to this interview, about 65%: https://institutional.vanguard.com/VGAp ... ancedFunds
Loren Moran wrote: So we developed the Global Wellington and Global Wellesley Funds based on the original framework of the longstanding Wellington and Wellesley Funds.
...
The global nature of these funds adds an additional element of diversification and return potential, but investors should expect around a 65% overlap with the holdings in the domestic funds.

Makeitlast85
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:14 am

Re: New for Vanguard!

Post by Makeitlast85 » Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:19 pm

Thanks good replies from both. I visited both firms in the UK who will manage the equity portion of wellington global when I was in investor relations and they are top notch. Loren - I think the 65% refers to the allocation between stocks and bonds - roughly similar to US Wellington. Thanks

User avatar
Sheepdog
Posts: 5045
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:05 pm
Location: Indiana, retired 1998 at age 65

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by Sheepdog » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:16 pm

TdF fan wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:10 pm
Sheepdog wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:18 pm
Makeitlast85 wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:24 am
Does anyone know how much overlap there will be in global wellington between the US stocks it will hold and the US stocks held in the US version of Wellington? Will they be the same stocks - only in smaller amounts. :?
I do not know. I expect that because the management teams for the Global editions are different, there will be different stock selections. There may be some duplicate stocks possible if they fit their program.
According to this interview, about 65%: https://institutional.vanguard.com/VGAp ... ancedFunds
Loren Moran wrote: So we developed the Global Wellington and Global Wellesley Funds based on the original framework of the longstanding Wellington and Wellesley Funds.
...
The global nature of these funds adds an additional element of diversification and return potential, but investors should expect around a 65% overlap with the holdings in the domestic funds.
Thank you for that information.
People should not say everything they think. They should think about everything they say.

TropikThunder
Posts: 925
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:41 pm

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by TropikThunder » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:43 pm

nkotbbh wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:24 pm
I am just starting out have read 4 books total on investing although on the verge of being 32 yrs old, Just saw it as a 2 fund portfolio 2/3 stocks 1/3 bonds and vice a versa, currently investing in ETF's.
Vanguard doesn't have ETF versions of any of their active funds so that may be a while. :|

schachtw
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 6:15 pm

Re: New for Vanguard!

Post by schachtw » Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:58 pm

Informative article on the two new Global Wellington & Wellesley funds.

Gives pct breakdown between US and foreign equities for each.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalp ... sley-funds

mouses
Posts: 3400
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2015 12:24 am

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by mouses » Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:06 pm

Chuck wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:47 am
If you don't have $3000 to invest, your money should go into a savings account.
This. You need an emergency fund, OP.

This thread now reminds me of decades ago, when then Twentieth Century focused on small investors. I think I had something set up like a $50 every month investment in Ultra.

TIAX
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:19 pm

Re: New for Vanguard!

Post by TIAX » Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:07 am

nkotbbh wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:59 am
So this morning I saw 2 new funds for vanguard Vanguard Global Wellington™ Fund and Vanguard Global Wellesley® Income Fund seems like the perfect asset allocation at only $20.00 a share. What do you guys think? Would you buy or not? The only thing is that I am not familiar with mutual funds and I guess you need $3000 for investor shares $50000 for admiral shares which I do not have either way. Unless you/I can buy only a certain amount is that possible?
You're going to buy funds based on their share price? The share price should make no difference to you.

nkotbbh
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:34 pm

Re: New for Vanguard!

Post by nkotbbh » Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:18 pm

TIAX wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:07 am
nkotbbh wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:59 am
So this morning I saw 2 new funds for vanguard Vanguard Global Wellington™ Fund and Vanguard Global Wellesley® Income Fund seems like the perfect asset allocation at only $20.00 a share. What do you guys think? Would you buy or not? The only thing is that I am not familiar with mutual funds and I guess you need $3000 for investor shares $50000 for admiral shares which I do not have either way. Unless you/I can buy only a certain amount is that possible?
You're going to buy funds based on their share price? The share price should make no difference to you.
No not on their price, but either way I can not afford it so if they come out etf's maybe but in the meantime I am out.

nkotbbh
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:34 pm

Re: New for VANGUARD!

Post by nkotbbh » Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:19 pm

TropikThunder wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:43 pm
nkotbbh wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:24 pm
I am just starting out have read 4 books total on investing although on the verge of being 32 yrs old, Just saw it as a 2 fund portfolio 2/3 stocks 1/3 bonds and vice a versa, currently investing in ETF's.
Vanguard doesn't have ETF versions of any of their active funds so that may be a while. :|
True waiting to see if they come out with an ETF version of it if not I am out.

Post Reply