VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
Topic Author
roth evangelist
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:56 pm

VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by roth evangelist »

Hopefully some value heads can help enlighten me on a question I have.

I started investing in a Roth IRA with Betterment a couple of years ago, and they put a good chunk of your portfolio in value ETFs. So (part) of my Roth looks like this:

VTV (Vanguard Value ETF) - 9.2%
VOE (Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF) - 7.5%
VBR (Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF) - 6.4%

A little while after that I opened an HSA through my work, and in selecting funds for my account, I sorta copied my Betterment portfolio and invested 20% in value in the mutual fund equivalents of the three Vanguard value ETFs. So this:

VVIAX - 8%
VMVAX - 7%
VSIAX - 5%

Now I’ve been reading a little more about value investing in general and from what I’ve read, including on some other forum posts, Vanguard’s value index funds don’t really offer the best exposure to the value factor. So I’ve been looking into VFVA and how it offers not only broader exposure in one package (large, mid and small cap) but also offers deeper value. I’m obviously comfortable with the value tilt as a long-term investment, but I’m wondering now if I were to leave Betterment and move my Roth to Vanguard or Fidelity, should I be using something like VFVA instead of VTV/VOE/VBR to better capture what I think I’m getting? I realize VFVA is more active and a little more expensive, but if it is indeed a better value fund, I'm totally fine with that.

Thoughts?
YRT70
Posts: 1289
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:51 am

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by YRT70 »

I haven't really looked into VFVA so can't help with that but I do like VFMF, the multi factor fund. Besides value and size it also loads on quality and momentum. We've had some discussions about VFMF: viewtopic.php?t=325772
Topic Author
roth evangelist
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:56 pm

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by roth evangelist »

YRT70 wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 7:10 am I haven't really looked into VFVA so can't help with that but I do like VFMF, the multi factor fund. Besides value and size it also loads on quality and momentum. We've had some discussions about VFMF: viewtopic.php?t=325772
I've read some stuff on momentum as well. It seems more like short-term investing as opposed to the long-term of value. Also, maybe because the multi-factor fund combines so many factors it's a little harder to understand. Part of what led me to all this was watching Ben Felix's YouTube videos on value and five-factor investing. He says that small size doesn't add a premium and mentioned that VBR was just an alright value fund, which surprised me a bit and led me to wonder what could be better.
User avatar
grabiner
Advisory Board
Posts: 35307
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Columbia, MD

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by grabiner »

I made the switch when VFVA was created, as it gives me better value exposure. (Previously, I had used RZV, Guggenheim S&P 600 Pure Value, in my HSA for deep-value exposure.)

If you don't switch, you don't need the mid-cap fund. Vanguard's large-cap indexes include both mega-caps and mid-caps, so a large-cap and a small-cap index cover the whole market.
Wiki David Grabiner
Topic Author
roth evangelist
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:56 pm

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by roth evangelist »

grabiner wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:01 pm I made the switch when VFVA was created, as it gives me better value exposure. (Previously, I had used RZV, Guggenheim S&P 600 Pure Value, in my HSA for deep-value exposure.)

If you don't switch, you don't need the mid-cap fund. Vanguard's large-cap indexes include both mega-caps and mid-caps, so a large-cap and a small-cap index cover the whole market.
So are you saying VOE has significant overlap with VTV?
User avatar
grabiner
Advisory Board
Posts: 35307
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Columbia, MD

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by grabiner »

roth evangelist wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:11 pm
grabiner wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:01 pm I made the switch when VFVA was created, as it gives me better value exposure. (Previously, I had used RZV, Guggenheim S&P 600 Pure Value, in my HSA for deep-value exposure.)

If you don't switch, you don't need the mid-cap fund. Vanguard's large-cap indexes include both mega-caps and mid-caps, so a large-cap and a small-cap index cover the whole market.
So are you saying VOE has significant overlap with VTV?
Yes. VOE (Mid-Cap Value) plus MGV (Mega-Cap Value) combine to make VTV (Large-Cap Value).
Wiki David Grabiner
Topic Author
roth evangelist
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:56 pm

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by roth evangelist »

grabiner wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:23 pm
roth evangelist wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:11 pm
grabiner wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:01 pm I made the switch when VFVA was created, as it gives me better value exposure. (Previously, I had used RZV, Guggenheim S&P 600 Pure Value, in my HSA for deep-value exposure.)

If you don't switch, you don't need the mid-cap fund. Vanguard's large-cap indexes include both mega-caps and mid-caps, so a large-cap and a small-cap index cover the whole market.
So are you saying VOE has significant overlap with VTV?
Yes. VOE (Mid-Cap Value) plus MGV (Mega-Cap Value) combine to make VTV (Large-Cap Value).
Oh wow I didn't even realize that. It checks out with the number of stocks in each of them. Makes even less sense that Betterment uses these three for value exposure.
YRT70
Posts: 1289
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:51 am

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by YRT70 »

roth evangelist wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:47 pm
YRT70 wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 7:10 am I haven't really looked into VFVA so can't help with that but I do like VFMF, the multi factor fund. Besides value and size it also loads on quality and momentum. We've had some discussions about VFMF: viewtopic.php?t=325772
I've read some stuff on momentum as well. It seems more like short-term investing as opposed to the long-term of value. Also, maybe because the multi-factor fund combines so many factors it's a little harder to understand. Part of what led me to all this was watching Ben Felix's YouTube videos on value and five-factor investing. He says that small size doesn't add a premium and mentioned that VBR was just an alright value fund, which surprised me a bit and led me to wonder what could be better.
Small size doesn't add a premium on it's own but it does when combined with value and profitability. This is what VFMF does. I'm not sure about VFVA (which also has size exposure). Felix recommends Avantis AVUV in this paper: https://www.pwlcapital.com/wp-content/u ... h-ETFs.pdf
brademac
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 4:50 pm

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by brademac »

Check out the Avantis Small Cap value ETF (AVUV)

Loads heavy on size, value, and profitability

Low expense ratio, low turnover, and spreads trades out to further save costs.

Also extremely tax efficient if you want for taxable account

They also have similar international small cap value fund (AVDV)

Starting soon they launch a Emerging Markets Value and Large Cap Value ETF
reln
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by reln »

roth evangelist wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:40 am Hopefully some value heads can help enlighten me on a question I have.

I started investing in a Roth IRA with Betterment a couple of years ago, and they put a good chunk of your portfolio in value ETFs. So (part) of my Roth looks like this:

VTV (Vanguard Value ETF) - 9.2%
VOE (Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF) - 7.5%
VBR (Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF) - 6.4%

A little while after that I opened an HSA through my work, and in selecting funds for my account, I sorta copied my Betterment portfolio and invested 20% in value in the mutual fund equivalents of the three Vanguard value ETFs. So this:

VVIAX - 8%
VMVAX - 7%
VSIAX - 5%

Now I’ve been reading a little more about value investing in general and from what I’ve read, including on some other forum posts, Vanguard’s value index funds don’t really offer the best exposure to the value factor. So I’ve been looking into VFVA and how it offers not only broader exposure in one package (large, mid and small cap) but also offers deeper value. I’m obviously comfortable with the value tilt as a long-term investment, but I’m wondering now if I were to leave Betterment and move my Roth to Vanguard or Fidelity, should I be using something like VFVA instead of VTV/VOE/VBR to better capture what I think I’m getting? I realize VFVA is more active and a little more expensive, but if it is indeed a better value fund, I'm totally fine with that.

Thoughts?
Both are poor options for value investing. If these are your only options, don't even bother trying to capture the value premium, you probably won't get it. Just go with market cap VTI etc.

VFVA has had suspiciously poor implementation in it's short history. Also check out its turnover, talk about tax inefficient.

VTV, VOE, VBR are tracking an inappropriate index to capture the best part of the value premium. Capturing value is best achieved by excluding unprofitable companies (ie, avoiding the falling knife), excluding companies that make risky investment decisions (ie, reckless management), and trading slowly (ie, low turnover, avoiding consistent betting against momentum). The underlying index for these ETFs does very little to nothing to achieve these objectives.
absolute zero
Posts: 1244
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2016 3:59 pm

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by absolute zero »

reln wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:33 pm
roth evangelist wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:40 am Hopefully some value heads can help enlighten me on a question I have.

I started investing in a Roth IRA with Betterment a couple of years ago, and they put a good chunk of your portfolio in value ETFs. So (part) of my Roth looks like this:

VTV (Vanguard Value ETF) - 9.2%
VOE (Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF) - 7.5%
VBR (Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF) - 6.4%

A little while after that I opened an HSA through my work, and in selecting funds for my account, I sorta copied my Betterment portfolio and invested 20% in value in the mutual fund equivalents of the three Vanguard value ETFs. So this:

VVIAX - 8%
VMVAX - 7%
VSIAX - 5%

Now I’ve been reading a little more about value investing in general and from what I’ve read, including on some other forum posts, Vanguard’s value index funds don’t really offer the best exposure to the value factor. So I’ve been looking into VFVA and how it offers not only broader exposure in one package (large, mid and small cap) but also offers deeper value. I’m obviously comfortable with the value tilt as a long-term investment, but I’m wondering now if I were to leave Betterment and move my Roth to Vanguard or Fidelity, should I be using something like VFVA instead of VTV/VOE/VBR to better capture what I think I’m getting? I realize VFVA is more active and a little more expensive, but if it is indeed a better value fund, I'm totally fine with that.

Thoughts?
Both are poor options for value investing. If these are your only options, don't even bother trying to capture the value premium, you probably won't get it. Just go with market cap VTI etc.

VFVA has had suspiciously poor implementation in it's short history. Also check out its turnover, talk about tax inefficient.

VTV, VOE, VBR are tracking an inappropriate index to capture the best part of the value premium. Capturing value is best achieved by excluding unprofitable companies (ie, avoiding the falling knife), excluding companies that make risky investment decisions (ie, reckless management), and trading slowly (ie, low turnover, avoiding consistent betting against momentum). The underlying index for these ETFs does very little to nothing to achieve these objectives.
I don't know much about VFVA, but I disagree regarding VBR. If you run a 5 factor FF regression back to fund inception (link below), you'll see that it has a slightly positive profitability loading, and a slightly negative (but insignificant) investment loading. You are getting HML and SMB exposure when you invest in VBR. Would it be nice to get a healthier load of profitability? Absolutely. But harvesting the value premium doesn't require it. Getting exposure to profitability (and other factors) is just extra icing on the cake.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/fac ... sion=false
User avatar
grabiner
Advisory Board
Posts: 35307
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Columbia, MD

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by grabiner »

reln wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:33 pm VFVA has had suspiciously poor implementation in it's short history. Also check out its turnover, talk about tax inefficient.
Turnover isn't a problem for taxes; despite the turnover, it has a realized capital loss. And it had 100% qualified dividends last year. (I still choose to hold it in my IRA, because it is less tax-efficient than the IVLU which I use for international large-cap value.)

And I don't see the issue with implementation. Portfolio Vizualizer says that it has a statistically insignificant alpha, and a slight negative momentum loading; this is what usually happens with deep-value funds. ETF.com doesn't list an alpha, but gives the fund a slight positive momentum loading.
Wiki David Grabiner
Topic Author
roth evangelist
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:56 pm

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by roth evangelist »

brademac wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:07 pm Check out the Avantis Small Cap value ETF (AVUV)

Loads heavy on size, value, and profitability

Low expense ratio, low turnover, and spreads trades out to further save costs.

Also extremely tax efficient if you want for taxable account

They also have similar international small cap value fund (AVDV)

Starting soon they launch a Emerging Markets Value and Large Cap Value ETF
Thank, I'll look into those. International value would be my next logical research area after figuring out U.S.
Topic Author
roth evangelist
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:56 pm

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by roth evangelist »

I've also heard it argued that traditional value investing has failed to account for intangible assets. Are there funds that do account for that or is this an overrated worry?
Topic Author
roth evangelist
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:56 pm

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by roth evangelist »

reln wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:33 pm
roth evangelist wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:40 am Hopefully some value heads can help enlighten me on a question I have.

I started investing in a Roth IRA with Betterment a couple of years ago, and they put a good chunk of your portfolio in value ETFs. So (part) of my Roth looks like this:

VTV (Vanguard Value ETF) - 9.2%
VOE (Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF) - 7.5%
VBR (Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF) - 6.4%

A little while after that I opened an HSA through my work, and in selecting funds for my account, I sorta copied my Betterment portfolio and invested 20% in value in the mutual fund equivalents of the three Vanguard value ETFs. So this:

VVIAX - 8%
VMVAX - 7%
VSIAX - 5%

Now I’ve been reading a little more about value investing in general and from what I’ve read, including on some other forum posts, Vanguard’s value index funds don’t really offer the best exposure to the value factor. So I’ve been looking into VFVA and how it offers not only broader exposure in one package (large, mid and small cap) but also offers deeper value. I’m obviously comfortable with the value tilt as a long-term investment, but I’m wondering now if I were to leave Betterment and move my Roth to Vanguard or Fidelity, should I be using something like VFVA instead of VTV/VOE/VBR to better capture what I think I’m getting? I realize VFVA is more active and a little more expensive, but if it is indeed a better value fund, I'm totally fine with that.

Thoughts?
Both are poor options for value investing. If these are your only options, don't even bother trying to capture the value premium, you probably won't get it. Just go with market cap VTI etc.

VFVA has had suspiciously poor implementation in it's short history. Also check out its turnover, talk about tax inefficient.

VTV, VOE, VBR are tracking an inappropriate index to capture the best part of the value premium. Capturing value is best achieved by excluding unprofitable companies (ie, avoiding the falling knife), excluding companies that make risky investment decisions (ie, reckless management), and trading slowly (ie, low turnover, avoiding consistent betting against momentum). The underlying index for these ETFs does very little to nothing to achieve these objectives.
VOE has an even worse turnover rate than VFVA. I'm not planning on value funds for a taxable account, so tax efficiency isn't a concern for me. What do you mean by poor implementation? Judging by the price/book ratio, it's more value-oriented than even VBR.
reln
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by reln »

absolute zero wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:49 pm
reln wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:33 pm
roth evangelist wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:40 am Hopefully some value heads can help enlighten me on a question I have.

I started investing in a Roth IRA with Betterment a couple of years ago, and they put a good chunk of your portfolio in value ETFs. So (part) of my Roth looks like this:

VTV (Vanguard Value ETF) - 9.2%
VOE (Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF) - 7.5%
VBR (Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF) - 6.4%

A little while after that I opened an HSA through my work, and in selecting funds for my account, I sorta copied my Betterment portfolio and invested 20% in value in the mutual fund equivalents of the three Vanguard value ETFs. So this:

VVIAX - 8%
VMVAX - 7%
VSIAX - 5%

Now I’ve been reading a little more about value investing in general and from what I’ve read, including on some other forum posts, Vanguard’s value index funds don’t really offer the best exposure to the value factor. So I’ve been looking into VFVA and how it offers not only broader exposure in one package (large, mid and small cap) but also offers deeper value. I’m obviously comfortable with the value tilt as a long-term investment, but I’m wondering now if I were to leave Betterment and move my Roth to Vanguard or Fidelity, should I be using something like VFVA instead of VTV/VOE/VBR to better capture what I think I’m getting? I realize VFVA is more active and a little more expensive, but if it is indeed a better value fund, I'm totally fine with that.

Thoughts?
Both are poor options for value investing. If these are your only options, don't even bother trying to capture the value premium, you probably won't get it. Just go with market cap VTI etc.

VFVA has had suspiciously poor implementation in it's short history. Also check out its turnover, talk about tax inefficient.

VTV, VOE, VBR are tracking an inappropriate index to capture the best part of the value premium. Capturing value is best achieved by excluding unprofitable companies (ie, avoiding the falling knife), excluding companies that make risky investment decisions (ie, reckless management), and trading slowly (ie, low turnover, avoiding consistent betting against momentum). The underlying index for these ETFs does very little to nothing to achieve these objectives.
I don't know much about VFVA, but I disagree regarding VBR. If you run a 5 factor FF regression back to fund inception (link below), you'll see that it has a slightly positive profitability loading, and a slightly negative (but insignificant) investment loading. You are getting HML and SMB exposure when you invest in VBR. Would it be nice to get a healthier load of profitability? Absolutely. But harvesting the value premium doesn't require it. Getting exposure to profitability (and other factors) is just extra icing on the cake.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/fac ... sion=false
SMB on its own doesn't have a premium; it's just a control variable. Value without profitablity is much worse than value with profitablity. Blind focus on just value, like it was mentioned, bets against momentum consequently adding negative premium to the mix and washing away some (maybe a lot) your value premium. Having value loading is insufficient, you need all 3 simultaneously value, profitablity, and momentum. Investment is great to have in theory but it is difficult in practice to balance all relevant factors bc they are oftentimes (not always) canceling each other out.
reln
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by reln »

grabiner wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:20 pm
reln wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:33 pm VFVA has had suspiciously poor implementation in it's short history. Also check out its turnover, talk about tax inefficient.
Turnover isn't a problem for taxes; despite the turnover, it has a realized capital loss. And it had 100% qualified dividends last year. (I still choose to hold it in my IRA, because it is less tax-efficient than the IVLU which I use for international large-cap value.)

And I don't see the issue with implementation. Portfolio Vizualizer says that it has a statistically insignificant alpha, and a slight negative momentum loading; this is what usually happens with deep-value funds. ETF.com doesn't list an alpha, but gives the fund a slight positive momentum loading.
For now. The strategy is a high turnover strategy. Capital losses can't last forever while also maintaining good returns. Eventually there has to be large capital gains if the strategy is maintained. So it's future tax bill is going to be large. Transaction costs are low but still matter as a drag at this level of turnover in the long run. When I say implementation I don't mean they don't have loading. I mean their loading is inefficient. You can have plenty of loading and stick up the joint. I suspect that factor investing is just something outside of vanguards wheelhouse even though they have former DFA running it.
User avatar
grabiner
Advisory Board
Posts: 35307
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Columbia, MD

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by grabiner »

reln wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:34 am
grabiner wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:20 pm
reln wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:33 pm VFVA has had suspiciously poor implementation in it's short history. Also check out its turnover, talk about tax inefficient.
Turnover isn't a problem for taxes; despite the turnover, it has a realized capital loss. And it had 100% qualified dividends last year. (I still choose to hold it in my IRA, because it is less tax-efficient than the IVLU which I use for international large-cap value.)

And I don't see the issue with implementation. Portfolio Vizualizer says that it has a statistically insignificant alpha, and a slight negative momentum loading; this is what usually happens with deep-value funds. ETF.com doesn't list an alpha, but gives the fund a slight positive momentum loading.
For now. The strategy is a high turnover strategy. Capital losses can't last forever while also maintaining good returns. Eventually there has to be large capital gains if the strategy is maintained. So it's future tax bill is going to be large.
The ETF structure seems to be able to eliminate this. Vanguard has a lot of high-turnover ETFs, and the only diversified stock ETF which has ever distributed a capital gain is VSS (Vanguard FTSE All-World Ex-US Small-Cap), which started near the 2009 market bottom and distributed small gains in 2009 and 2010.
Transaction costs are low but still matter as a drag at this level of turnover in the long run. When I say implementation I don't mean they don't have loading. I mean their loading is inefficient. You can have plenty of loading and stick up the joint.
If the loading is inefficient, the fund would have negative alpha, or significantly less factor weight than is available elsewhere. I don't see this yet, although with only three years of data, it is hard for a factor fund to have a statistically significant positive or negative alpha.
I suspect that factor investing is just something outside of vanguards wheelhouse even though they have former DFA running it.
This may be the case, but I am waiting to see the evidence. For now, I would recommend VFVA in an IRA, and AVUV in a taxable account. (Despite the lack of capital gains, VFVA has a higher tax cost because of its higher dividend yield). I hold VFVA in my Roth IRA for both large-cap-value and small-cap-value exposure, so I can switch if I see the evidence. I do use Avantis for international small-cap value, holding AVDV in my Roth IRA and HSA.
Wiki David Grabiner
User avatar
Vegomatic
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:16 pm

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by Vegomatic »

Here is what a regression equivalent of VFVA vs the other mentioned VG funds looks like...

http://tinyurl.com/similar-vfva
Topic Author
roth evangelist
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:56 pm

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by roth evangelist »

Vegomatic wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:37 pm Here is what a regression equivalent of VFVA vs the other mentioned VG funds looks like...

http://tinyurl.com/similar-vfva
What exactly does that mean?
AdrianC
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 6:31 am

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by AdrianC »

roth evangelist wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:32 pm
Vegomatic wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:37 pm Here is what a regression equivalent of VFVA vs the other mentioned VG funds looks like...

http://tinyurl.com/similar-vfva
What exactly does that mean?
My take:
77.5% VBR + 22.5% MGV gives similar loadings to 100% VFVA with lower expenses.
VFVA is a bit more "valuey".

Substituting VTV for MGV gives about the same result.
VTV & VBR have much lower expense ratios.
Angst
Posts: 2968
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:31 am

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by Angst »

roth evangelist wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:32 pm
Vegomatic wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:37 pm Here is what a regression equivalent of VFVA vs the other mentioned VG funds looks like...

http://tinyurl.com/similar-vfva
What exactly does that mean?
Just as an aside, using https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/match-factor-exposure (in Vegomatic's post above) to create a "Factor Exposure Clone" portfolio is a convenient way of identifying potential TLH partners.
Topic Author
roth evangelist
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:56 pm

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by roth evangelist »

Does anyone know how I can find out what percentage of VTV is mid-cap (VOE) and what percent is mega-cap (MGV)?
Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 25625
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by Grt2bOutdoors »

roth evangelist wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:07 pm Does anyone know how I can find out what percentage of VTV is mid-cap (VOE) and what percent is mega-cap (MGV)?
Use portfoliovisualizer.com, put in the etf symbols, select the exposure tab, it will provide the breakout by market cap. Looks like its 22% midcap, 78% large cap.
"One should invest based on their need, ability and willingness to take risk - Larry Swedroe" Asking Portfolio Questions
Topic Author
roth evangelist
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:56 pm

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by roth evangelist »

Grt2bOutdoors wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:15 pm
roth evangelist wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:07 pm Does anyone know how I can find out what percentage of VTV is mid-cap (VOE) and what percent is mega-cap (MGV)?
Use portfoliovisualizer.com, put in the etf symbols, select the exposure tab, it will provide the breakout by market cap. Looks like its 22% midcap, 78% large cap.
Ah. I haven't really played around with that tool yet. Thanks!
User avatar
grabiner
Advisory Board
Posts: 35307
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Columbia, MD

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by grabiner »

roth evangelist wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:07 pm Does anyone know how I can find out what percentage of VTV is mid-cap (VOE) and what percent is mega-cap (MGV)?
Look at the ratio of the top holdings. The top ten holdings of MGV are 25.00% of the fund, and the top ten holdings of VTV are 20.10% (both as of 9/30). Since 20.10% is 80.4% of 25.00%, this implies that MGV is 80% of VTV.

Note that this is different from a breakdown by cap range, for two reasons. The obvious reason is that different sources may have a different definition of cap range; CRSP's definition is that mega-cap is the top 70% of the market and mid-cap is 70%-85%. The other main reason is that the CRSP indexes have buffer zones to reduce turnover; stocks near the 70% line stay in whichever index they were previously in.
Wiki David Grabiner
YRT70
Posts: 1289
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:51 am

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by YRT70 »

AdrianC wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 7:31 am
roth evangelist wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:32 pm
Vegomatic wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:37 pm Here is what a regression equivalent of VFVA vs the other mentioned VG funds looks like...

http://tinyurl.com/similar-vfva
What exactly does that mean?
My take:
77.5% VBR + 22.5% MGV gives similar loadings to 100% VFVA with lower expenses.
VFVA is a bit more "valuey".

Substituting VTV for MGV gives about the same result.
VTV & VBR have much lower expense ratios.
Unfortunately I don't think there's enough data for VFVA to run regression with monthly returns.

This is what it looks like with daily returns: https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/fac ... sion=false

Very high value loading and some profitability loading.
Last edited by YRT70 on Sat Nov 06, 2021 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
YRT70
Posts: 1289
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:51 am

Re: VFVA v. VTV+VOE+VBR

Post by YRT70 »

grabiner wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:20 pm
reln wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:33 pm VFVA has had suspiciously poor implementation in it's short history. Also check out its turnover, talk about tax inefficient.
Turnover isn't a problem for taxes; despite the turnover, it has a realized capital loss.
What exactly are the downsides of high turnover? I noticed VFVA has 52% while AVUV has 22% turnover.

How does it manifest? Higher internal transaction costs?
Post Reply