WSJ: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat [Fidelity charging some plans to hold Vanguard funds]

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Topic Author
pcsrini
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:51 pm

WSJ: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat [Fidelity charging some plans to hold Vanguard funds]

Post by pcsrini » Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:38 pm

Link, and there may be a paywall:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wall-stree ... 1517157915
"Fidelity makes it more expensive for some clients to invest in Vanguard funds, while others cut off access altogether"


Gist of the article is that Vanguard does not pay brokerages servicing cost fees, and Fidelity and other are adding fees for vanguard funds to discourage buying these funds.

BeachPerson
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:39 pm
Location: Northern VA

Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by BeachPerson » Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:41 pm

[Thread merged into here, see below. --admin LadyGeek]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wall-stree ... o Vanguard

You need a subscription to the WSJ to read this. I will read it tomorrow since a co-worker brings in the WSJ each day.

I doubt what other firms are doing will make any dent in Vanguard's inflows.Vanguard has Jack as a great PR person.

Tim Buckey really jumped into the role and will be more active with using the press for the benefit of Vanguard.
David | | From Jack Brennan's "Straight Talk on Investing", page 23 "Living below your means is the ultimate financial strategy"

User avatar
JamesSFO
Posts: 3220
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:16 pm

Re: WSJ: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by JamesSFO » Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:42 pm

Thanks for the link

User avatar
SlowMovingInvestor
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:27 am

Re: WSJ: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by SlowMovingInvestor » Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:49 pm

pcsrini wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:38 pm
Link, and there may be a paywall:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wall-stree ... 1517157915
"Fidelity makes it more expensive for some clients to invest in Vanguard funds, while others cut off access altogether"


Gist of the article is that Vanguard does not pay brokerages servicing cost fees, and Fidelity and other are adding fees for vanguard funds to discourage buying these funds.
I can't read the article because of the paywall, but are you saying that these firms are imposing fees merely to hold the funds ? Almost all already have fees to buy and sell the funds, and some (like Fido) don't allow Admiral Funds to even be held.

Or is it only for access to Institutional Vanguard Funds in 401k plans managed by Fidelity ?

[ Note that Fido, TDAM etc. are hardly 'Wall Street' except by a very broad definition, so the title of the article is somewhat inappropriate]

Bwlonge
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:36 am

Re: WSJ: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by Bwlonge » Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:54 pm

Considering Fidelity has parallel funds, I just buy their's.

User avatar
Peculiar_Investor
Posts: 1308
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:23 am
Location: Calgary, AB
Contact:

Re: WSJ: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by Peculiar_Investor » Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:55 pm

From the article
WSJ wrote:Fidelity, the largest 401(k) plan administrator in the country, will now charge new corporate customers that hire the firm to run their 401(k) plans a fee of 0.05% on assets invested in Vanguard funds. That new fee covers administrative services that Fidelity provides as a 401(k) record-keeper, a spokeswoman for the Boston firm said.

“A small number of fund families have not compensated Fidelity for certain services, and this pricing change is designed to address that disparity with the intention of providing fairness across all of our business relationships,” she added. “This is about leveling the playing field.”

Fidelity explicitly requires employers to pay the fee, rather than passing it off to plan participants, a person familiar with the matter said.
There is lots more to the article, you might be able to Google the title to bypass the WSJ paywall.

It also states the recent move by Fidelity’s retirement business, which was first reported Fidelity pushes Vanguard to compete on brand in 401(k) plans | InvestmentNews, so that might be another avenue to read about this subject.
Normal people… believe that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Engineers believe that if it ain’t broke, it doesn’t have enough features yet. – Scott Adams

User avatar
saltycaper
Posts: 2650
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:47 pm
Location: The Tower

Re: WSJ: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by saltycaper » Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:57 pm

pcsrini wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:38 pm
Link, and there may be a paywall:
That's probably a good thing in this case.
Quod vitae sectabor iter?

Gropes & Ray
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 7:28 am

Re: WSJ: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by Gropes & Ray » Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:57 pm

Fido is charging employers .05% to include vanguard funds in their 401k offerings. I anticipate employers would rather offer more expensive funds where their employees pay the burden, so it's bad for 401k participants.

Should also point out that Fido index funds are fine too. So participants may be fine.

ulrichw
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 12:17 am

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by ulrichw » Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:58 pm

Your link didn't work for me - here's one that did: https://www.wsj.com/articles/wall-stree ... 1517157915
(I'm an online WSJ subscriber)

Key points:
"Fidelity, the largest 401(k) plan administrator in the country, will now charge new corporate customers that hire the firm to run their 401(k) plans a fee of 0.05% on assets invested in Vanguard funds.", though
"Fidelity explicitly requires employers to pay the fee, rather than passing it off to plan participants, a person familiar with the matter said. Companies and plan participants typically share 401(k) plan administration costs, however, which means savers could bear some or all of the new cost if an employer sought to recoup the new expense in a less explicit way, retirement industry executives say."
More context:
"Executives from the two firms have been in talks for years over Vanguard’s refusal to pay the servicing costs."

So basically Vanguard is no helping the point-of-sale brokers by paying them for their service of bringing individuals to the fund. There's a tacit implication here that most other fund companies do this - and in a way it's not unreasonable, as it will in theory reduce the amount 401(k) administrators charge.

Other companies taking action "against" Vanguard:
"TD Ameritrade late last year overhauled its commission-free ETF trading lineup, dropping all 32 Vanguard products it had previously included. That overhaul increased the total number of ETFs that could be traded commission-free."

TD Ameritrade's action won't harm Bogleheads much as we probably aren't executing enough trades to care about commissions.

"Morgan Stanley last year decided to ban its financial advisers from selling clients new positions in Vanguard mutual funds, the Journal reported. Merrill Lynch has long had such a policy for its advisers."

Another nail in the coffin for financial advisers.

Not all actions have "stuck": "Morgan Stanley, for example, considered changing the compensation calculation for its financial advisers to discourage them from keeping clients in Vanguard funds, but ultimately decided against it, according to people familiar with the matter. The change mooted would have excluded client assets in mutual funds that don’t pay for distribution when calculating financial-adviser compensation."

This'll feed this forum's preconceptions about financial advising as a field. Nice that they decided against it, but how the heck could they even consider this?

drk
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:33 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: WSJ: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by drk » Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:07 pm

SlowMovingInvestor wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:49 pm
[ Note that Fido, TDAM etc. are hardly 'Wall Street' except by a very broad definition, so the title of the article is somewhat inappropriate]
Last year, Morgan Stanley dropped Vanguard mutual funds altogether (link), and I've seen several posts from Chase customers who are no longer able to buy Admiral shares because of some mysterious new-but-unnamed regulation.

Edit: Silly me. This is actually cited in the article.
Morgan Stanley last year decided to ban its financial advisers from selling clients new positions in Vanguard mutual funds, the Journal reported. Merrill Lynch has long had such a policy for its advisers.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 57846
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by LadyGeek » Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:47 pm

I merged davidkw's thread into here, which is in the Investing - Theory, News & General forum (general news).

For those looking to read the article without a subscription, it's available via Facebook. Here's a shortcut: Re: The Wall Street Journal to close Google loophole entirely

Update: It's the technique described by Pajamas 2 posts down from here.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

Paul Romano
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:47 pm

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by Paul Romano » Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:05 pm

As a long time Vanguard investor and supporter I can understand Fidelitys point of view.

If you owned a grocery store would you stock and sell a vendors products if you could not earn a profit on them.

Fidelity is asking to be compensated for selling Vanguards products.

According to the article there is $180 billion dollars of Vanguard products on their 401k platform.

This is certainly an advantage to Vanguard in that they do not have to provide any customer support for all of these assets.

BeachPerson
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:39 pm
Location: Northern VA

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by BeachPerson » Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:27 pm

More financial advisers are going "fee only", so they can offer Vanguard funds.
David | | From Jack Brennan's "Straight Talk on Investing", page 23 "Living below your means is the ultimate financial strategy"

Jim Beaux
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:29 pm

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by Jim Beaux » Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:54 pm

Here ya go
Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat
http://www.cetusnews.com/business/Wall- ... GFoHf.html

drk
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:33 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by drk » Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:06 pm

Paul Romano wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:05 pm
As a long time Vanguard investor and supporter I can understand Fidelitys point of view.

If you owned a grocery store would you stock and sell a vendors products if you could not earn a profit on them.

Fidelity is asking to be compensated for selling Vanguards products.

According to the article there is $180 billion dollars of Vanguard products on their 401k platform.

This is certainly an advantage to Vanguard in that they do not have to provide any customer support for all of these assets.
I don't think anyone needs to shed a tear for Fidelity here. Fidelity is being paid to administer 401(k) plans. It wants to juice that income by charging more fees. This is a logical next step if its loss leader funds have not ginned up sufficient interest.

swguy
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 5:27 pm

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by swguy » Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:24 pm

Its ironic that most of the posts in this thread about Fido working to monetize sales of Vanguard funds are about posters trying to circumvent the WSJ monetizing the article. :)

User avatar
BolderBoy
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:16 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by BolderBoy » Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:25 pm

I'll take some blame for Fidelity doing this with Vanguard Funds.

The hospital system in which I used to work (not as an employee) has their retirement plan run through Fidelity. Over the last 3 years I've been showing any of the employees who asked (after I gave two presentations) why they should ditch the default funds into which they were placed by Fidelity, and switch to 2-3 Vanguard total market funds that were also available (but somewhat 'hidden').

The default Fidelity funds have 0.66% ERs and the Vanguard funds have 0.06% ERs.

A lot of the employees switched.

Can't blame Fidelity for trying to salvage some revenue.
"Never underestimate one's capacity to overestimate one's abilities" - The Dunning-Kruger Effect

User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 4521
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:22 pm

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. » Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:33 pm

These are the some of the most important parts:
One reason Vanguard has been able to offer such low fees for so long is the structure of its business: It is owned by its fund shareholders. The Malvern, Pa., money-management giant also allows investors to buy mutual funds directly from it unlike many of its rivals and trade its exchange-traded funds commission-free.
“It’s definitely unusual; we haven’t seen any other charge like this,” said Emily Wrightson, director at Cammack Retirement Group, Inc., adding that it could deter companies considering whether or not to hire Fidelity if their employees prefer Vanguard funds. “I don’t think it’s going to help” Fidelity win new business, she said.
Fidelity isn’t alone in targeting Vanguard. Other brokerage platforms have also taken steps that make the index giant’s products less appealing than comparably priced funds sold by rivals. TD Ameritrade late last year overhauled its commission-free ETF trading lineup, dropping all 32 Vanguard products it had previously included. That overhaul increased the total number of ETFs that could be traded commission-free.

Morgan Stanley last year decided to ban its financial advisers from selling clients new positions in Vanguard mutual funds, the Journal reported. Merrill Lynch has long had such a policy for its advisers.
Moves to deter the use of Vanguard funds have at times stalled.

Morgan Stanley, for example, considered changing the compensation calculation for its financial advisers to discourage them from keeping clients in Vanguard funds, but ultimately decided against it, according to people familiar with the matter. The change mooted would have excluded client assets in mutual funds that don’t pay for distribution when calculating financial-adviser compensation.
Another example of not doing right by customers but trying to service the company's bottom line. "No man can serve to masters". Who do you think Fidelity, TD Ameritrade, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch is serving by making this move? Certainly not its customers.
"May you live as long as you want and never want as long as you live" -- Irish Blessing | "Invest we must" -- Jack Bogle

stan1
Posts: 7739
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:35 pm

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by stan1 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:42 pm

I understand why Fidelity is doing this. Why would Fidelity sell a Vanguard product at cost when others give them a small mark up? Why would an employer pay extra to access Vanguard funds when there are similar funds from Fidelity, Blackrock, and American albeit possibly with higher expense ratios? Vanguard is trying to grow their 401K administration business by making it more expensive for other administrators to offer their funds. Seems odd to blame Fidelity for that.

As a Vanguard investor I'm happy Vanguard passes savings on to me through lower expense ratios (although I wish they'd spend more on reliable and accurate IT systems).

The people most impacted by this will be 401K participants who end up with higher expense ratio alternatives to Vanguard funds while being locked into the plan administrator chosen by their employer. Very very few people would take or quit a job over the presence of Vanguard funds in a 401K.

mortfree
Posts: 1859
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:06 pm

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by mortfree » Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:57 pm

I get charged $75 each time when I buy Vanguard’s Wellesley and Vanguard Health Care funds in my Fidelity 401k brokerage account.

I think I’ve bought Wellesley twice and health care once.

User avatar
SlowMovingInvestor
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:27 am

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by SlowMovingInvestor » Sun Jan 28, 2018 8:33 pm

My recollection is that Fido's Institutional index funds are actually marginally cheaper than Vanguards (like .005 %).

Given that, I can understand why they would prefer that 401k plans use their index funds rather than Vanguards'.

For Individual Investors, one good thing is that Fidelity doesn't charge for selling a fund (even a TF fund).

User avatar
Alexa9
Posts: 1872
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:41 am

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by Alexa9 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:23 pm

If you can't beat them, tax them!

CardHound
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:34 pm

Wall Street to Vanguard - "were not your doormat anymore"

Post by CardHound » Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:35 pm

[Thread merged into here, see below. --admin LadyGeek]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wall-stree ... 1517157915

Just came across this. It certainly doesn't seem very fiduciary to charge your customers more because your funds can't compete. I did notice though in my own 401k that Vanguard's institutional shares charge even less than their Admiral shares.

Does this push more people to Vanguard or to others funds?


jumppilot
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 12:38 am

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by jumppilot » Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:52 pm

This development doesn't bother me much. Expense ratios have become so low that we, main street investors, have won the game.

We have entered new territory where we've gone so low on the ER arms race that perhaps a bit of correction is needed. Anything below 15 bps is a steal in my opinion - I can have $1 million invested in a broad market index fund and pay $1500 a year for the privilege. I couldn't create that portfolio on my own for less cost.

Not a bad trade off in my opinion.

darrvao777
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 1:34 pm

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by darrvao777 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:00 pm

Read the article today and I'm glad I use Vanguard as my brokerage firm

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 57846
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by LadyGeek » Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:28 pm

I merged CardHound's post and stan1's reply into here.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

TIAX
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:19 pm

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by TIAX » Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:26 pm

Interesting that so many of Vanguard's competitors took actions against it at one time. I hope they didn't discuss it beforehand.

VennData
Posts: 578
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:52 pm

Wall Street cuts off access to Vanguard

Post by VennData » Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:16 am

[merged into existing topic - moderator prudent]

Cut off access altogether
​​​https://www.wsj.com/articles/wall-stre ... 17157915​​

livesoft
Posts: 68668
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:00 pm

Re: Wall Street cuts off access to Vanguard

Post by livesoft » Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:23 am

Yawn. JPMorgan Chase is not going out of their way to let people invest in Fidelity nor Schwab funds.

And Fidelity is not offering up JPMorgan Chase, nor Oppenheimer, nor DFA although of course one can probably get those funds at Fidelity for a fee.

Those fund "supermarkets" with 5000 NTF funds in the them were just a joke anyways.

WallStreet has always been Balkanized.

And this thread is duplicate of threads already started on the subject.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.

User avatar
sometimesinvestor
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 6:54 am

vanguard attacked by other firms

Post by sometimesinvestor » Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:25 am

[merged into existing topic - moderator prudent]

there will be an impact on vanguard funds/etfs held with other firms

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wall-stree ... 1517157915

wisevermilion
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:53 pm

Re: Wall Street cuts off access to Vanguard

Post by wisevermilion » Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:27 am

Fidelity, the largest 401(k) plan administrator in the country, will now charge some new corporate customers that hire the firm to run their 401(k) plans a fee of 0.05% on assets invested in Vanguard funds. That new fee covers administrative services that Fidelity provides as a 401(k) record-keeper, a spokeswoman for the Boston firm said. Fidelity explicitly requires employers to pay the fee, rather than passing it off to plan participants, a person familiar with the matter said.

TD Ameritrade late last year overhauled its commission-free ETF trading lineup, dropping all 32 Vanguard products it had previously included. That overhaul increased the total number of ETFs that could be traded commission-free.

Morgan Stanley last year decided to ban its financial advisers from selling clients new positions in Vanguard mutual funds, the Journal reported. Merrill Lynch has long had such a policy for its advisers.

mariezzz
Posts: 847
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:02 pm

Re: Wall Street cuts off access to Vanguard

Post by mariezzz » Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:33 am

wisevermilion wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:27 am
Fidelity, the largest 401(k) plan administrator in the country, will now charge some new corporate customers that hire the firm to run their 401(k) plans a fee of 0.05% on assets invested in Vanguard funds. That new fee covers administrative services that Fidelity provides as a 401(k) record-keeper, a spokeswoman for the Boston firm said. Fidelity explicitly requires employers to pay the fee, rather than passing it off to plan participants, a person familiar with the matter said.
Even with the fee of .05% on assets invested in Vanguard funds, the Vanguard funds will be cheaper than the majority of options people have in 401ks.
Perhaps justified to cover Fidelity's expenses?? Could be a very minor deterrent to companies from offering Vanguard products.

How can Fidelity explicitly require employers to pay the fee for Vanguard products, if it doesn't do the same for other products? Does this create legal questions?

User avatar
simplesimon
Posts: 3432
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:53 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Wall Street cuts off access to Vanguard

Post by simplesimon » Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:07 am

mariezzz wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:33 am
How can Fidelity explicitly require employers to pay the fee for Vanguard products, if it doesn't do the same for other products? Does this create legal questions?
I don't think there's a law in place that stops them from doing so. Employers/companies are not the same as consumers when it comes to protection.

User avatar
triceratop
Posts: 5838
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:20 pm
Location: la la land

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by triceratop » Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:21 am

I don't see the issue, or why people are saying this is yet another non-Vanguard company screwing over investors. Fund companies (or even any company, sans Uber), even Vanguard, don't normally offer products which cost them money. This article seems like a big yawn.
"To play the stock market is to play musical chairs under the chord progression of a bid-ask spread."

longleaf
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:13 pm

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by longleaf » Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:24 am

Frugality, indexing, time.

Engineer250
Posts: 1078
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:41 pm

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by Engineer250 » Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:56 am

Have a Vanguard 401k with awful funds chosen by my employer/some stupid third party FA. I pay $50 a year to invest outside the plan which lets me access Vanguard funds. Currently I think that’s about 0.6% of my 401k with VG. Obviously it will get less over time, but paying to access more affordable funds might be worth it.
Where the tides of fortune take us, no man can know.

User avatar
Christine_NM
Posts: 2700
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:13 am
Location: New Mexico

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by Christine_NM » Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:15 pm

See this thread for making a bookmarklet to read WSJ thru Facebook: viewtopic.php?t=210764 -- without actually being on Facebook.

A few posts down triceratop tells you how to do it. Works for this article.
16% cash 48% stock 36% bond. Retired, w/d rate 2.85%

User avatar
Pajamas
Posts: 6015
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by Pajamas » Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:33 pm

Can't say I much blame Fidelity for being concerned about the issue. However, the issue of hidden or indirect fees is also a problem. I generally prefer transparency and simplicity over obfuscation and complexity.

It's not a perfect comparison, but I see it as very similar to food companies paying grocery stores slotting fees for shelf space. Vanguard has refused to pay such fees so Fidelity has responded by charging them to customers instead. In a grocery store, those fees are not transparent. In the Fidelity/Vanguard fund situation, these new fees are transparent, so they are attracting criticism even though they are preferable to equal but hidden fees.

I prefer the model that BJ's, Costco, Trader Joe's, Walmart, Whole Foods, and perhaps other grocery stores such as Aldi and Lidl use. They don't charge or accept slotting fees but instead focus on wholesale prices and that seems to generally result in lower prices for the customer compared to stores that charge slotting fees. It may even just boil down to the administrative costs for the more complex system using slotting fees accounting for much of the difference or it may be part of an overall focus and way of doing business.

All mutual funds should eliminate the kickback fees to custodians and custodians should instead charge a fee to customers to cover their administrative costs. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Another issue that this raises is that many custodians see the mutual fund companies as their real customers and the individual investors who buy the funds are just a product that they sell to the mutual fund companies.

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 39470
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by nisiprius » Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:01 pm

Yay Wall Street! Go Wall Street! You tell 'em. You just stand up to those Vanguard bullies and tell 'em what for. Finally, someone is on the side of the little guy. We shall at last be protected against cheap, cheesy, promiscuous index funds that will buy any stock that breathes. We shall enjoy the blessings of quality mutual funds with portfolios that are professionally curated by high-quality people of exquisitely discriminating taste. We shall at last get both the growth and the value we deserve. Finally, Vanguard's heavy yoke of oppression shall be lifted from our shoulders. We shall at last be liberated, free of the crushing burden, free from the Dark Lord of Malvern. Free at last, free at last, great God Almighty, we are free at last! Let's give two cheers: Rah. Rah.

I'm being ironic. Could you tell?
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

invst65
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 11:04 am

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by invst65 » Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:16 pm

I wanted to buy a Vanguard fund in my Fidelity Roth IRA but the cost was $75 for the transaction.

There was an easy solution to that problem. I transferred the whole fund to Vanguard.

User avatar
Taylor Larimore
Advisory Board
Posts: 28827
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by Taylor Larimore » Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:22 pm

I'm being ironic. Could you tell?
Nisiprius:

Great post. I thought you were serious. :wink:

Best wishes.
Taylor
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle

User avatar
greg24
Posts: 3712
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:34 am

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by greg24 » Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:37 pm

jumppilot wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:52 pm
Expense ratios have become so low that we, main street investors, have won the game.
Completely agree. The race to lower expense ratios have gotten so low, that a 5bp fee is being imposed, and discussed and dissected.

Considering a world where a whole lot of people are paying 1.5%+, Vanguard forcing companies to focus on the minutia shows just how far we have come.

:sharebeer

jaj2276
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:13 pm

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by jaj2276 » Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:43 pm

In my 401k plan, I'm charged 25 bps (instead of Fido's 5bps) for investing in Vanguard funds. It sucks but it still ends up being cheaper than the other funds they offer.

VennData
Posts: 578
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:52 pm

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by VennData » Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:58 pm

Paul Romano wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:05 pm
As a long time Vanguard investor and supporter I can understand Fidelitys point of view... This is certainly an advantage to Vanguard in that they do not have to provide any customer support for all of these assets.
Vanguard's customer support is excellent

VennData
Posts: 578
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:52 pm

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by VennData » Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:01 pm

nisiprius wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:01 pm
Yay Wall Street! Go Wall Street!
I almost hit the :!: button thinking Nusiprius's account had been compromised. <jk>

VennData
Posts: 578
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:52 pm

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by VennData » Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:02 pm

It's great how so few Bogleheads subscribe to the WSJ :sharebeer

BeachPerson
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:39 pm
Location: Northern VA

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by BeachPerson » Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:59 pm

Using peashooters

Rivals Fire Peashooters at Vanguard Juggernaut


Nice read by Barrons
Last edited by BeachPerson on Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
David | | From Jack Brennan's "Straight Talk on Investing", page 23 "Living below your means is the ultimate financial strategy"

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 39470
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Wall Street to Vanguard: We’re Not Your Doormat

Post by nisiprius » Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:10 pm

Corrected link: Rivals Fire Peashooters at Vanguard's Juggernaut

Code: Select all

You needed this "url=" syntax:
[url=https://www.barrons.com/articles/rivals-fire-peashooters-at-vanguard-juggernaut-1517240312]Using peashooters[/url]
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

MrPotatoHead
Posts: 429
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:41 pm

Re: Wall Street cuts off access to Vanguard

Post by MrPotatoHead » Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:16 am

livesoft wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:23 am
Yawn. JPMorgan Chase is not going out of their way to let people invest in Fidelity nor Schwab funds.

And Fidelity is not offering up JPMorgan Chase, nor Oppenheimer, nor DFA although of course one can probably get those funds at Fidelity for a fee.

Those fund "supermarkets" with 5000 NTF funds in the them were just a joke anyways.

WallStreet has always been Balkanized.
FYI I can get DFA funds in my Fido 401K plan with no additional fees, though I have no idea why I would want them or any of the plethora of other funds I can obtain. IMO, you pay a dear price to participate in some academic theories that none less than the great Jack Bogle indicates he thinks is a mirage.

I don't mind paying a premium of .37% for my Stable Value fund as I can't get that outside the plan. But the rest of my investments are in the .02-.04% ER range.

There are a number of DFA funds (11, I think) and they range from .32 up to .69% ERs with the majority closer to the latter than the former.

I did a rough calculation on the equity portion of my portfolio, they would run me roughly $5,520 a year vs the $240 a year in expense ratios I am running now.

Post Reply