Total World expense ratio lowered
-
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 8:46 pm
Total World expense ratio lowered
Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund now reflects the expense ratios from the recent annual report: .11% for the ETF and .21% for the investor shares mutual fund. Hopefully, Vanguard will soon offer admiral shares for this marvelous fund. I have not looked at other funds to see if they have also been lowered; perhaps we will see an announcement later today.
Pragmatist
Pragmatist
Last edited by pragmatist on Thu Dec 23, 2021 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
Awesome! I've been waiting months for this change to happen to my favorite, and only, equity fund. The blended expense ratio for 60% VTI and 40% VXUS (per Vanguard's recommendations) is 0.074%. So 0.11% for VT is not much more to pay for a truly set it and forget it investment. And it should go down more in the future.
Roth was a Senator, not an acronym. Please, stop writing it in all caps.
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
Doc,
Love the signature, made me smile.
~Big Dutch
Love the signature, made me smile.
~Big Dutch
Total World Stock exp. ratio falls from 0.25 to 0.21
A new Vanguard message about VTWSX came out today:
As of 02/24/2017, the expense ratio on Vanguard Total World Stock Index Investor Shares has changed from 0.25% to 0.21%.
Not quite as good as an announcement about Admiral shares would be, but you gotta love the downward trend. Wasn't it 0.50 when it first opened?
As of 02/24/2017, the expense ratio on Vanguard Total World Stock Index Investor Shares has changed from 0.25% to 0.21%.
Not quite as good as an announcement about Admiral shares would be, but you gotta love the downward trend. Wasn't it 0.50 when it first opened?
Re: Total World Stock exp. ratio falls from 0.25 to 0.21
Just noticed that VT is at .11 now (same as VXUS), as was expected, and came to see if anyone already posted.
If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything. ~Ronald Coase
Re: Total World Stock exp. ratio falls from 0.25 to 0.21
Is anyone besides me tempted to post live long and prosper below Vulcan's post in this type of thread?
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
^^^ Yes.
Instead: I merged CyberBob's thread into here.
Instead: I merged CyberBob's thread into here.
- asset_chaos
- Posts: 2628
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:13 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
Total World also appears to be up to full replication of its benchmark:
Code: Select all
VTWSX Benchmark +/- Weight
Number of stocks 7,697 7,695 2
Regards, |
|
Guy
-
- Posts: 3626
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:00 pm
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
Why isn't it offered with Admiral Shares? Not enough investors?
I would probably use it if it did.
I would probably use it if it did.
The most precious gift we can offer anyone is our attention. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
Is it tax-efficient to use Vanguard Total World ETF (VT) in a taxable account?
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
Relative to what? It will pay out dividends, those are taxable. It may pay out capital gain distributions but probably not many due to the ETF share class (and perhaps none at all). Those are taxable too.Pranav wrote:Is it tax-efficient to use Vanguard Total World ETF (VT) in a taxable account?
So it will produce taxable events. The question is what are you comparing it to? It will have fairly low turnover, and the ETF share class helps eliminate capital gain distributions. That's pretty tax efficient.
Are you comparing it to a bond fund? Yeah it's probably more tax efficient than any bond fund in a taxable account. Unless it's a muni bond fund. And whether you're using muni or taxable bonds depends on your individual tax situation.
Are you comparing it to another stock fund? Then it gets more complex to answer. The simple answer would be that it's about as tax efficient as Total Stock Market and Total International Index Funds. The differences wouldn't really start mattering unless you're investing $1mil+ in the fund.
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
I was comparing it to Total US Stock or Total International Stock at Vanguard.toto238 wrote:Relative to what? It will pay out dividends, those are taxable. It may pay out capital gain distributions but probably not many due to the ETF share class (and perhaps none at all). Those are taxable too.Pranav wrote:Is it tax-efficient to use Vanguard Total World ETF (VT) in a taxable account?
So it will produce taxable events. The question is what are you comparing it to? It will have fairly low turnover, and the ETF share class helps eliminate capital gain distributions. That's pretty tax efficient.
Are you comparing it to a bond fund? Yeah it's probably more tax efficient than any bond fund in a taxable account. Unless it's a muni bond fund. And whether you're using muni or taxable bonds depends on your individual tax situation.
Are you comparing it to another stock fund? Then it gets more complex to answer. The simple answer would be that it's about as tax efficient as Total Stock Market and Total International Index Funds. The differences wouldn't really start mattering unless you're investing $1mil+ in the fund.
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki
- asset_chaos
- Posts: 2628
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:13 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
Vanguard data says as of end of January, total world investor shares have $1.2 billion, institutional $1.8 billion and total assets of $9.6 b. Only speculation, but with investor shares now over a billion in assets, perhaps that's a breakpoint at which they'd look at adding admiral shares. Perhaps the difficulty is that most/all of the investor shares would convert to admiral class, if it existed, in which case they couldn't lower the er of most/all of the share class today by 10 bp ($1.2 million) and still run the share class at cost, since it costs 21 bp ($2.5 million) to run today. Again speculation, but we may have to wait until investor share assets get around $2.5 billion before we see admiral shares.finite_difference wrote:Why isn't it offered with Admiral Shares? Not enough investors?
Regards, |
|
Guy
- asset_chaos
- Posts: 2628
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:13 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
Total World has been as tax-efficient as any of Vanguard's total market type stock index funds.Pranav wrote:Is it tax-efficient to use Vanguard Total World ETF (VT) in a taxable account?
Regards, |
|
Guy
- triceratop
- Posts: 5838
- Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:20 pm
- Location: la la land
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
This is not true. There are real, honest to goodness differences between total world and total market, and total international (dividend rate, QDI amounts, foreign tax credit). It is the case that Total world is roughly equivalent to a proper weighting of total US market and total international market.asset_chaos wrote:Total World has been as tax-efficient as any of Vanguard's total market type stock index funds.Pranav wrote:Is it tax-efficient to use Vanguard Total World ETF (VT) in a taxable account?
"To play the stock market is to play musical chairs under the chord progression of a bid-ask spread."
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
I went with the index fund instead of the etf. If they decide to offer admiral shares will the conversion happen with no tax costs if held in a taxable account?
Stocks-80% || Bonds-20% || VTI/VXUS/AOR
- triceratop
- Posts: 5838
- Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:20 pm
- Location: la la land
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
Yes.lostdog wrote:I went with the index fund instead of the etf. If they decide to offer admiral shares will the conversion happen with no tax costs if held in a taxable account?
"To play the stock market is to play musical chairs under the chord progression of a bid-ask spread."
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
Conversions between share classes are non taxable.
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
Unless, of course, you count Vanguard ETFs that are different share classes of their mutual fund twins. Converting from a Vanguard mutual fund to the equivalent ETF is a non-taxable event, but transitioning from an ETF to the equivalent mutual fund is a taxable event.Thesaints wrote:Conversions between share classes are non taxable.
"Discipline matters more than allocation.” |—| "In finance, if you’re certain of anything, you’re out of your mind." ─William Bernstein
-
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 8:46 pm
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
Is there any reason to expect Vanguard to NOT offer admiral shares for a fund that both has investor shares and an ETF? Is there a precedent that has been around longer than Total World, particular an index fund?
- triceratop
- Posts: 5838
- Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:20 pm
- Location: la la land
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
VSS/VFSVX has been around nearly as long as total world and Vanguard still says they have no plans in the short to intermediate term to introduce an admiral shares version.pragmatist wrote:Is there any reason to expect Vanguard to NOT offer admiral shares for a fund that both has investor shares and an ETF? Is there a precedent that has been around longer than Total World, particular an index fund?
"To play the stock market is to play musical chairs under the chord progression of a bid-ask spread."
-
- Posts: 958
- Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:10 pm
- Location: Philadelphia
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
With VTI at .04% and VXUS at .11% I would expect VT (or its fund equivalent) to eventually cost somewhere just under .10%. Until then I will keep the seperate funds. My entire life savings is now invested at an expense of .07% and I want to keep it that way.
After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art. Chopin
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
I think that Total World Admiral would have a lower expense ratio that a equivalent combination of Total US and Total International. Total World investors would in many cases hold one stock fund and never have any transactions. Those with the two stock funds would have frequent transactions between the two for rebalancing - and these transactions generate paperwork, calls to customer service, etc. It would likely be less expensive to manage Total World.DartThrower wrote:With VTI at .04% and VXUS at .11% I would expect VT (or its fund equivalent) to eventually cost somewhere just under .10%. Until then I will keep the seperate funds. My entire life savings is now invested at an expense of .07% and I want to keep it that way.
The simplicity of Total World is breathtaking. A global cap-weight strategy seems to be the ultimate conclusion of Efficient Market Theory. Any other strategy seems somewhat speculative in my opinion - someone with strong home country bias is implicitly betting that Ford will outperform Toyota, that Apple will outperform Samsung, etc. There are very real risks (political risks, and especially currency risks) that need to be discussed, of course - and these may justify a small home country bias for many. However, one person's currency risk is another's currency diversification.
Vanguard really should create Total World Admiral soon. It has the potential to serve as an excellent "one fund" equity holding for so many.
- TimeRunner
- Posts: 1938
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:23 pm
- Location: Beach-side, CA
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
One thing I really like about holding VT in TIRA and Roth accounts, where TLH is not an issue, is that there's no temptation to fitz around with rebalancing. Holding VT (at an expense ratio that would likely be the same as a non-existent Admiral fund version) in these accounts has been very worthwhile, and I'm comfortable with holding a global equity allocation as the global middle class expands in many non-US countries, presenting many opportunities for VT companies to sell middle-class lifestyle goods, services, real estate and energy to billions of new customers.
One cannot enlighten the unconscious. | "All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I'm fine." -Jeff Spicoli
- spdoublebass
- Posts: 889
- Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:04 pm
- Location: NY
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
I'm only posting this here because it seems to be a recent post regarding Total World.
I'm new to investing and have read a lot, a real lot, in the last few months. I'll spare you the details, but everyone reading this probably did the same thing when they first got involved with investing. I'm struggling with finding an international allocation I am comfortable with. I know it's been discussed on this this forum, and yes I have probably read every post on the topic.
I know the main arguments are between a world market allocation (let's just call this 50/50) and having a smaller portion for international (20-50%).
The issue I am having is when I look at each year individually from 1997-2017 is that I'm surprised how split is is between US and International stocks. I compared VTSMX and VGTSX. In the past 21 years, US came out ahead 11 times, and INT cam out ahead 10 times. I know this doesn't mean much....BUT to me it does because this kind of analysis helps me think about how I would react if I only had a 25% International (or less) allocation when it was outperforming US from 2002-2007. Could I have just stayed the course? Would I have wanted to tinker etc.
I'm really leaning towards using VT (VTWSX) as my main holding. The main reason for this is to participate in both the US and INT at market weights. When I look at the average combined return for VTSMX and VGTSX (which would roughly equal total world) for the last 21 years, I think I would have ben ok with the average percentage between the two. Yes, you don't ever reach the high's, but you also don't ever reach the low's. I don't know how people stayed the course in 2001, I'm 33, but can still remember it was a wild time, 9-11 and Y2k. I don't know how I would have been able to stay the course on a US only portfolio for the next 7 years.
Looking only at 2017 YTD:
VGTSX = 14.52%
VTSMX = 9.5%
I would be ok with VT (TWSX) YTD of 11.85%.
My questions are:
1. Is this sound logic for picking a US/INT allocation? Am I missing something?
2. If you wanted to still tilt, you can simply add those funds to Total World correct? I'm particularly interested in added more VRB (SCV) and VSS (Int small cap), equally off course to not change the overall weight.
I'm new to investing and have read a lot, a real lot, in the last few months. I'll spare you the details, but everyone reading this probably did the same thing when they first got involved with investing. I'm struggling with finding an international allocation I am comfortable with. I know it's been discussed on this this forum, and yes I have probably read every post on the topic.
I know the main arguments are between a world market allocation (let's just call this 50/50) and having a smaller portion for international (20-50%).
The issue I am having is when I look at each year individually from 1997-2017 is that I'm surprised how split is is between US and International stocks. I compared VTSMX and VGTSX. In the past 21 years, US came out ahead 11 times, and INT cam out ahead 10 times. I know this doesn't mean much....BUT to me it does because this kind of analysis helps me think about how I would react if I only had a 25% International (or less) allocation when it was outperforming US from 2002-2007. Could I have just stayed the course? Would I have wanted to tinker etc.
I'm really leaning towards using VT (VTWSX) as my main holding. The main reason for this is to participate in both the US and INT at market weights. When I look at the average combined return for VTSMX and VGTSX (which would roughly equal total world) for the last 21 years, I think I would have ben ok with the average percentage between the two. Yes, you don't ever reach the high's, but you also don't ever reach the low's. I don't know how people stayed the course in 2001, I'm 33, but can still remember it was a wild time, 9-11 and Y2k. I don't know how I would have been able to stay the course on a US only portfolio for the next 7 years.
Looking only at 2017 YTD:
VGTSX = 14.52%
VTSMX = 9.5%
I would be ok with VT (TWSX) YTD of 11.85%.
My questions are:
1. Is this sound logic for picking a US/INT allocation? Am I missing something?
2. If you wanted to still tilt, you can simply add those funds to Total World correct? I'm particularly interested in added more VRB (SCV) and VSS (Int small cap), equally off course to not change the overall weight.
Last edited by spdoublebass on Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm trying to think, but nothing happens
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
Maybe a stupid question but what is it about total stock, total international, and total world that leads to ERs being different at all?
spdoublebass you might get more eyeballs with a separate post.
spdoublebass you might get more eyeballs with a separate post.
Re: Total World Stock exp. ratio falls from 0.25 to 0.21
linenfort wrote:Is anyone besides me tempted to post live long and prosper below Vulcan's post in this type of thread?
Yes.
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
Totally missed this thread, thank you for sharing. I convinced my 20-something sons to keep it super simple and start investing their retirement savings in this fund, the ER was bugging me a tad, and now I can fully feel good about it! Can't wait for the Admiral class as well, and the automatic upgrade.pragmatist wrote:Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund now reflects the expense ratios from the recent annual report: .11 for the ETF and .21 for the investor shares mutual fund. Hopefully, Vanguard will soon offer admiral shares for this marvelous fund. I have not looked at other funds to see if they have also been lowered; perhaps we will see an announcement later today.
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
To me it does. Yes if I wanted to it I could buy some vtsax or whatever you want.spdoublebass wrote:I'm only posting this here because it seems to be a recent post regarding Total World.
I'm new to investing and have read a lot, a real lot, in the last few months. I'll spare you the details, but everyone reading this probably did the same thing when they first got involved with investing. I'm struggling with finding an international allocation I am comfortable with. I know it's been discussed on this this forum, and yes I have probably read every post on the topic.
I know the main arguments are between a world market allocation (let's just call this 50/50) and having a smaller portion for international (20-50%).
The issue I am having is when I look at each year individually from 1997-2017 is that I'm surprised how split is is between US and International stocks. I compared VTSMX and VGTSX. In the past 21 years, US came out ahead 11 times, and INT cam out ahead 10 times. I know this doesn't mean much....BUT to me it does because this kind of analysis helps me think about how I would react if I only had a 25% International (or less) allocation when it was outperforming US from 2002-2007. Could I have just stayed the course? Would I have wanted to tinker etc.
I'm really leaning towards using VT (VTWSX) as my main holding. The main reason for this is to participate in both the US and INT at market weights. When I look at the average combined return for VTSMX and VGTSX (which would roughly equal total world) for the last 21 years, I think I would have ben ok with the average percentage between the two. Yes, you don't ever reach the high's, but you also don't ever reach the low's. I don't know how people stayed the course in 2001, I'm 33, but can still remember it was a wild time, 9-11 and Y2k. I don't know how I would have been able to stay the course on a US only portfolio for the next 7 years.
Looking only at 2017 YTD:
VGTSX = 14.52%
VTSMX = 9.5%
I would be ok with VT (TWSX) YTD of 11.85%.
My questions are:
1. Is this sound logic for picking a US/INT allocation? Am I missing something?
2. If you wanted to still tilt, you can simply add those funds to Total World correct? I'm particularly interested in added more VRB (SCV) and VSS (Int small cap), equally off course to not change the overall weight.
I am all in this fund for life. Pure simplicity...
Stocks-80% || Bonds-20% || VTI/VXUS/AOR
-
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 8:46 pm
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
As an update to the OP, the semiannual report suggests that the expense ratio has remained at .11% and .21% for the etf and investor shares, respectively.
This suggest to me that the expense ratio may not continue to fall as quickly in the future. If only they would use Total World in funds of funds like target retirement, we could get some of that economy of scale that the other broad funds benefit from! Perhaps someday.
This suggest to me that the expense ratio may not continue to fall as quickly in the future. If only they would use Total World in funds of funds like target retirement, we could get some of that economy of scale that the other broad funds benefit from! Perhaps someday.
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
I am hoping we hear some good news in 2018 with regards to a possible cost reduction or the inclusion of admiral offerings. Total World (VTWSX) is still my core fund in taxable due to the ease of a true one fund (no rebalancing between VTIAX/VTSAX) and the tax benefit of the fund/ETF paring. Makes my life simple, however seeing the low ER of its ETF equivalent VT has made me tempted to convert the fund to an ETF class, though I've remained strong. An admiral offering of this fund would make me one happy camper.
- GreatOdinsRaven
- Posts: 572
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:47 pm
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
I have a suggestion-pokebowl wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:30 pm I am hoping we hear some good news in 2018 with regards to a possible cost reduction or the inclusion of admiral offerings. Total World (VTWSX) is still my core fund in taxable due to the ease of a true one fund (no rebalancing between VTIAX/VTSAX) and the tax benefit of the fund/ETF paring. Makes my life simple, however seeing the low ER of its ETF equivalent VT has made me tempted to convert the fund to an ETF class, though I've remained strong. An admiral offering of this fund would make me one happy camper.
I make automated mutual fund investments each month, because automated ETF investments aren't possible at Vanguard.
I used to buy Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US Small-Cap Index Fund Investor Shares (VFSVX). It only has an investor class. Once a year, I would call Vanguard and ask them to convert all of the existing shares (except one share) to the ETF share class (VSS). I kept one share because in doing so I didn't have to meet a future minimum purchase ($3,000) with my next monthly purchase.
Not a taxable event. Still kept making my monthly investor share class purchases thereafter. I could make subsequent conversions to the ETF share class later. For simplicity's sake I just did these mutual fund to ETF shares conversions, yearly, when I rebalanced. On a small balance the difference in costs between 21 bps and 11 bps is de minimis. (The one year difference in paying 21 bps vs 11 bps is just about meaningless).
You could do something similar with VTWSX and VT.
GOR
"The greatest enemies of the equity investor are expenses and emotions." -John C. Bogle, Little Book of Common Sense Investing. |
|
"Winter is coming." Lord Eddard Stark.
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
As far as I know, converting from the ETF to mutual fund shares is a taxable event - so someone who strongly desires the mutual fund structure over the ETF structure could potentially consider paying the higher investor shares expense ratio for a few years in hopes that admiral shares are created. (Investor to admiral isn't a taxable event). One should calculate exactly how much extra in fees this might cost, though - in dollars - in order to be comfortable with any decisions.GreatOdinsRaven wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:08 pmI have a suggestion-pokebowl wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:30 pm I am hoping we hear some good news in 2018 with regards to a possible cost reduction or the inclusion of admiral offerings. Total World (VTWSX) is still my core fund in taxable due to the ease of a true one fund (no rebalancing between VTIAX/VTSAX) and the tax benefit of the fund/ETF paring. Makes my life simple, however seeing the low ER of its ETF equivalent VT has made me tempted to convert the fund to an ETF class, though I've remained strong. An admiral offering of this fund would make me one happy camper.
I make automated mutual fund investments each month, because automated ETF investments aren't possible at Vanguard.
I used to buy Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US Small-Cap Index Fund Investor Shares (VFSVX). It only has an investor class. Once a year, I would call Vanguard and ask them to convert all of the existing shares (except one share) to the ETF share class (VSS). I kept one share because in doing so I didn't have to meet a future minimum purchase ($3,000) with my next monthly purchase.
Not a taxable event. Still kept making my monthly investor share class purchases thereafter. I could make subsequent conversions to the ETF share class later. For simplicity's sake I just did these mutual fund to ETF shares conversions, yearly, when I rebalanced. On a small balance the difference in costs between 21 bps and 11 bps is de minimis. (The one year difference in paying 21 bps vs 11 bps is just about meaningless).
You could do something similar with VTWSX and VT.
GOR
- asset_chaos
- Posts: 2628
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:13 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
To update this old thread, the annual report for total world came to my inbox a couple of days ago. The actual operating expenses, given in a footnote, for the fiscal year, which is end of Oct, were 19 bp for the investor shares. In the past this has foreshadowed an announcement in the following February of a formal lowering of the prospectus expense ratio.
Regards, |
|
Guy
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
And 10 bp for the ETF.asset_chaos wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:55 pm To update this old thread, the annual report for total world came to my inbox a couple of days ago. The actual operating expenses, given in a footnote, for the fiscal year, which is end of Oct, were 19 bp for the investor shares. In the past this has foreshadowed an announcement in the following February of a formal lowering of the prospectus expense ratio.
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
Excellent news. I hope they get an admiral class soon too.asset_chaos wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:55 pm To update this old thread, the annual report for total world came to my inbox a couple of days ago. The actual operating expenses, given in a footnote, for the fiscal year, which is end of Oct, were 19 bp for the investor shares. In the past this has foreshadowed an announcement in the following February of a formal lowering of the prospectus expense ratio.
- asset_chaos
- Posts: 2628
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:13 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
To update, I logged on to my account today to be greeted by
"As of 02/22/2018, the expense ratio on your Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund Investor Shares has changed from 0.21% to 0.19%."
I assume expenses for the etf shares officially lowered too. The march of lower expense ratios continues.
I repost a graph from this thread viewtopic.php?f=10&t=239495 plotting expense ratio (in basis points) versus asset size (in billions of $) for the investor classes of total stock market index fund and total world index fund. Note the logarithmic x-axis. Data is derived from fund annual reports, and the expense ratio is the actual expenses reported in footnotes, not the headline er.
Also worth noting is the wiki page keeping track of total world costs, https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Vanguar ... d_expenses.
"As of 02/22/2018, the expense ratio on your Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund Investor Shares has changed from 0.21% to 0.19%."
I assume expenses for the etf shares officially lowered too. The march of lower expense ratios continues.
I repost a graph from this thread viewtopic.php?f=10&t=239495 plotting expense ratio (in basis points) versus asset size (in billions of $) for the investor classes of total stock market index fund and total world index fund. Note the logarithmic x-axis. Data is derived from fund annual reports, and the expense ratio is the actual expenses reported in footnotes, not the headline er.
Also worth noting is the wiki page keeping track of total world costs, https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Vanguar ... d_expenses.
Regards, |
|
Guy
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
Very cool. Note that this World fund (VTWSX) is now tracked by the Simba backtesting spreadsheet, with historical returns from 1970, using MSCI and FTSE indices to fill the gap before the fund's inception mid-2008. I'll update the ER in the next revision.asset_chaos wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:21 pm"As of 02/22/2018, the expense ratio on your Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund Investor Shares has changed from 0.21% to 0.19%."
- TimeRunner
- Posts: 1938
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:23 pm
- Location: Beach-side, CA
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
VT ETF Expense Ratio is 0.10% as of 02/22/2018.
One cannot enlighten the unconscious. | "All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I'm fine." -Jeff Spicoli
-
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 8:46 pm
Re: Total World expense ratio lowered
From the annual report dated 10/31/2021 - released this week.
The fund’s annualized six-month expense ratios for that period are 0.06% for ETF Shares, 0.10% for Admiral Shares, and 0.08% for Institutional Shares. The dollar amounts shown as “Expenses Paid” are equal to the annualized expense ratio multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days in the most recent six-month period, then divided by the number of days in the most recent 12-month period (184/365).
Note that this doesn't mean these values will be the same when the prospectus is released in early 2022. But it's a good sign for the ETF.
The fund’s annualized six-month expense ratios for that period are 0.06% for ETF Shares, 0.10% for Admiral Shares, and 0.08% for Institutional Shares. The dollar amounts shown as “Expenses Paid” are equal to the annualized expense ratio multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by the number of days in the most recent six-month period, then divided by the number of days in the most recent 12-month period (184/365).
Note that this doesn't mean these values will be the same when the prospectus is released in early 2022. But it's a good sign for the ETF.