Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
- Rick Ferri
- Posts: 9707
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:40 am
- Location: Georgetown, TX. Twitter: @Rick_Ferri
- Contact:
Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
Vanguard's forthcoming all-digital advisor program will take their current PAS one-portfolio-fits-all strategy to a more impersonal level.
Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
Rick Ferri
Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
Rick Ferri
The Education of an Index Investor: born in darkness, finds indexing enlightenment, overcomplicates everything, embraces simplicity.
- Cheez-It Guy
- Posts: 4007
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:20 pm
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
Ditto on the marketing. Enough is enough. Yes, I want to be informed of options. I'd also like to be able to acknowledge and permanently dismiss marketing on topics not of particular interest. On advice from another thread on this forum, I called Vanguard earlier in the week and requested settings changes to minimize marketing. It was a good conversation, and the rep further confirmed that this was not a user-accessible setting, but that there were changes they could implement on the back end. We'll see if any change is detectable over the coming months now that he's flipped the switches. As long as I keep reading Bogleheads, I have no concern about being left out of the loop on the latest and greatest offerings. Occasionally, it seems Bogleheads are ahead of the reps with regard to product rollout knowledge.
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
Hi Rick, I think the Robo-Advisors are a good thing but we have to realize the limitations of this approach. Pretty much, if you want to talk to a human it will cost you 0.30% a year, if you don't need a human but still want guidance, it will cost you 0.15% a year. If you do-it-yourself, it will cost you nothing except for the expense ratios of the funds. If you want to talk to Rick Ferri, he will charge by the hour. I just chalk this up to the markets trying to set the price on advice, this certainly isn't the last word here, there will be further twists in the market for advice. Pricing isn't perfect but the market is adjusting here.
To me, it just seems like adding an additional layer of fees to a Target Date Retirement Fund or to a LifeStrategy Fund. What makes this work is the comprehensive advice other than just setting an asset allocation.
But remember, the old saying that if you build a better mousetrap that the world will beat a path to your door just isn't true. No one will know about the mousetrap unless the word gets out, marketing and advertising helps this a lot. Even your business needs marketing, you put the word out here that you were back in the business, nothing wrong with that, it is just business.
To me, it just seems like adding an additional layer of fees to a Target Date Retirement Fund or to a LifeStrategy Fund. What makes this work is the comprehensive advice other than just setting an asset allocation.
But remember, the old saying that if you build a better mousetrap that the world will beat a path to your door just isn't true. No one will know about the mousetrap unless the word gets out, marketing and advertising helps this a lot. Even your business needs marketing, you put the word out here that you were back in the business, nothing wrong with that, it is just business.
A fool and his money are good for business.
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
I really do not understand the appeal of robo advisors, especially the one from Vanguard, which from what I understand, gives really generic advice. I would save the money and go with a life strategy fund.
Last edited by student on Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
My observation is that many younger people have no desire to speak on the phone. I posit that folks 65+ prefer face-to-face advisor interactions. Folks 40-65 prefer phone and on-line interface. Investors age 40 and younger can hardly imagine meeting face-to-face or having to discuss things on the phone. My guess is the 40 & under crowd is the target market.
If Vanguard's foray into robo-advising is specifically aimed at younger investors they are at a disadvantage in this area because their web-site design and tools have always been clunky.
If Vanguard's foray into robo-advising is specifically aimed at younger investors they are at a disadvantage in this area because their web-site design and tools have always been clunky.
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
There’s clearly a market for self-defined Robo investing. It seems odd that they wouldn’t just do that (even if it were limited to Vanguard funds).
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
I don't think there is an online interaction anywhere that is free of marketing pitches. And if it isn't a marketing pitch its a request for "feedback" or to fill out a survey every time you transact business or attend an event.Cheez-It Guy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:42 am Ditto on the marketing. Enough is enough. Yes, I want to be informed of options. I'd also like to be able to acknowledge and permanently dismiss marketing on topics not of particular interest. On advice from another thread on this forum, I called Vanguard earlier in the week and requested settings changes to minimize marketing. It was a good conversation, and the rep further confirmed that this was not a user-accessible setting, but that there were changes they could implement on the back end. We'll see if any change is detectable over the coming months now that he's flipped the switches. As long as I keep reading Bogleheads, I have no concern about being left out of the loop on the latest and greatest offerings. Occasionally, it seems Bogleheads are ahead of the reps with regard to product rollout knowledge.
But, good for you for calling them about it and on it.
- Cheez-It Guy
- Posts: 4007
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:20 pm
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
That's true, and I don't begrudge them that. But in my case, I've seen the pitch, I'm not interested, and I don't need to keep seeing it. I'm the kind of person that the more I am bombarded with marketing beyond the initial product awareness campaign, the less interested I am, and may even refuse it on principle. I was just looking for an opt-out, and they gave one. Problem solved. I would prefer that the opt-out was easier / more transparent, but we can't have it all.
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
At age 60, I am approaching old fogey status. I still find that I do most of my business by the internet and some by phone. I call my broker about once a month, American Century Investments maybe four times a year, and Fidelity maybe twice a year. I visit my bank branch a few times a year, have visited a Fidelity branch office just once, haven't seen my broker in person for over 20 years, and have never been to an American Century office. I am more like the younger folks than I think. I will say that I like to talk to a live person whenever there is a problem, I get annoyed with the robots.goingup wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:02 pm My observation is that many younger people have no desire to speak on the phone. I posit that folks 65+ prefer face-to-face advisor interactions. Folks 40-65 prefer phone and on-line interface. Investors age 40 and younger can hardly imagine meeting face-to-face or having to discuss things on the phone. My guess is the 40 & under crowd is the target market.
If Vanguard's foray into robo-advising is specifically aimed at younger investors they are at a disadvantage in this area because their web-site design and tools have always been clunky.
A fool and his money are good for business.
- Cheez-It Guy
- Posts: 4007
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:20 pm
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
What about when the live person IS the problem? Those are actually my most frustrating interactions.
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
Well, you have a point there. You can swear at the robots.Cheez-It Guy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:24 pm What about when the live person IS the problem? Those are actually my most frustrating interactions.
A fool and his money are good for business.
- Rick Ferri
- Posts: 9707
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:40 am
- Location: Georgetown, TX. Twitter: @Rick_Ferri
- Contact:
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
Simplicity is key. Keep your portfolio in a few good funds and you won't need a robot or a human adviser managing your money.nedsaid wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:44 am Hi Rick, I think the Robo-Advisors are a good thing but we have to realize the limitations of this approach. Pretty much, if you want to talk to a human it will cost you 0.30% a year, if you don't need a human but still want guidance, it will cost you 0.15% a year. If you do-it-yourself, it will cost you nothing except for the expense ratios of the funds.
Rick Ferri
The Education of an Index Investor: born in darkness, finds indexing enlightenment, overcomplicates everything, embraces simplicity.
- Taylor Larimore
- Posts: 32842
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:09 pm
- Location: Miami FL
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
Rick:Rick Ferri wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 9:22 pm
Simplicity is key. Keep your portfolio in a few good funds and you won't need a robot or a human adviser managing your money.
Nice post. There are not many independent advisors who would admit we might not need a "human adviser". Character counts!
The Three-Fund Portfolio
Best wishes.
Taylor
Jack Bogle's Wisdom:"Tens of millions of investors need personal guidance in allocating their assets and selecting funds. Other tens of millions do not."
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
Good posts above. As one who tried VPAS several years ago based on the fallacious “well, when I die, non-financially-engaged spouse will have a fall-back” rationale, I can affirm that the service adds no value. One might argue that the service prevents unstable people from doing self-destructive things with their portfolio; but since there is nothing to prevent such “unstable people” from simply discontinuing the advisory service as a marker of their instability, not sure how powerful that argument is. The advice generated is predictably, unvaryingly, universally, and without any exception at all, cookie-cutter, and amounts to the same thing you’d get by picking a LifeStrategy Fund. Which is fine...but, um, I wouldn’t pay more than the LifeStrategy ER for such advice.
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
Vanguard should create taxable versions of Lifestrategy all in one funds and advise customers to use target duration and risk profile to choose 30/70, 40/60, 50/50, 60/40, 70/30, 80/20. Fidelity go robo does this for taxable or tax-advantage accounts.
Emergency: FDIC |
Taxable: VTMFX |
Retirement: TR2040
- RickBoglehead
- Posts: 7877
- Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:10 am
- Location: In a house
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
To me, that rationale is for my spouse to do AFTER I die. My instructions are to call Vanguard and get a meeting with the financial planner to discuss the portfolio, and whether PAS makes sense or simply touching base yearly to discuss which assets should be sold to pay living expenses IF the annual dividends, interest and capital gains don't meet her needs.smectym wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:09 am Good posts above. As one who tried VPAS several years ago based on the fallacious “well, when I die, non-financially-engaged spouse will have a fall-back” rationale, I can affirm that the service adds no value. One might argue that the service prevents unstable people from doing self-destructive things with their portfolio; but since there is nothing to prevent such “unstable people” from simply discontinuing the advisory service as a marker of their instability, not sure how powerful that argument is. The advice generated is predictably, unvaryingly, universally, and without any exception at all, cookie-cutter, and amounts to the same thing you’d get by picking a LifeStrategy Fund. Which is fine...but, um, I wouldn’t pay more than the LifeStrategy ER for such advice.
Avid user of forums on variety of interests-financial, home brewing, F-150, EV, home repair, etc. Enjoy learning & passing on knowledge. It's PRINCIPAL, not PRINCIPLE. I ADVISE you to seek ADVICE.
-
- Posts: 746
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:24 pm
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
RickBoglehead wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:11 am
To me, that rationale is for my spouse to do AFTER I die. My instructions are to call Vanguard and get a meeting with the financial planner to discuss the portfolio, and whether PAS makes sense or simply touching base yearly to discuss which assets should be sold to pay living expenses IF the annual dividends, interest and capital gains don't meet her needs.
After you die, your spouse automatically loses her advisor and is forced to start the PAS process all over again as if she were a new client. Your spouse can call Vanguard all she wants, but there won’t be any advisor to talk to.
The idea that VG will be a compassionate, reliable advisor to a surviving spouse seems to be a common misconception here.
- Cheez-It Guy
- Posts: 4007
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:20 pm
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
I think he's saying no PAS until he dies after which his wife should call and see whether PAS is right for her / establish service.
- RickBoglehead
- Posts: 7877
- Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:10 am
- Location: In a house
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
Correct. I have no need to establish PAS today. Until I am unable to handle my own finances (hopefully far into the future), my plan is exactly what you state. To say that you should pay PAS for years when you don't yet need it is clearly a waste of 0.3% per year.Cheez-It Guy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:54 am I think he's saying no PAS until he dies after which his wife should call and see whether PAS is right for her / establish service.
Avid user of forums on variety of interests-financial, home brewing, F-150, EV, home repair, etc. Enjoy learning & passing on knowledge. It's PRINCIPAL, not PRINCIPLE. I ADVISE you to seek ADVICE.
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
This is why the hourly model is the future. Portfolios once set up don't needs lots of maintenance, you might rebalance once or twice a year. Hard to justify Assets Under Management fees year after year for rebalancing. There is more work if the client is on a glide path to become more conservative with age. Another possible reason for maintenance is a change in life situation.Rick Ferri wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 9:22 pmSimplicity is key. Keep your portfolio in a few good funds and you won't need a robot or a human adviser managing your money.nedsaid wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:44 am Hi Rick, I think the Robo-Advisors are a good thing but we have to realize the limitations of this approach. Pretty much, if you want to talk to a human it will cost you 0.30% a year, if you don't need a human but still want guidance, it will cost you 0.15% a year. If you do-it-yourself, it will cost you nothing except for the expense ratios of the funds.
Rick Ferri
A fool and his money are good for business.
-
- Posts: 9477
- Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:16 pm
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
Yes! With my simple portfolio, I don't need any advice from either humans or robots. All I have to do is monitor the stock/bond ratio, the domestic/international ratio, and the total bond/municipal bond ratio.Rick Ferri wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 9:22 pmSimplicity is key. Keep your portfolio in a few good funds and you won't need a robot or a human adviser managing your money.nedsaid wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:44 am Hi Rick, I think the Robo-Advisors are a good thing but we have to realize the limitations of this approach. Pretty much, if you want to talk to a human it will cost you 0.30% a year, if you don't need a human but still want guidance, it will cost you 0.15% a year. If you do-it-yourself, it will cost you nothing except for the expense ratios of the funds.
Rick Ferri
-
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:22 pm
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
I agree completely.Cheez-It Guy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:17 pm That's true, and I don't begrudge them that. But in my case, I've seen the pitch, I'm not interested, and I don't need to keep seeing it. I'm the kind of person that the more I am bombarded with marketing beyond the initial product awareness campaign, the less interested I am, and may even refuse it on principle. I was just looking for an opt-out, and they gave one. Problem solved. I would prefer that the opt-out was easier / more transparent, but we can't have it all.
I don't mind that Vanguard offers this, but the marketing has been excessive. I called and asked Vanguard to stop, which they mostly have (I still get the pop-up and ad banner when I sign in, but I'm no longer getting postcards/emails).
As Rick Ferri noted above, if you have a simple portfolio, there is no need to pay for an advisor. I have an extremely simple portfolio (it's a one-fund portfolio) all in a tax advantaged account. Considering how much tax advantaged space I have available to me, I doubt I'll need to invest in a taxable account anytime soon. There is no need for me to pay for an advisor.
- FelixTheCat
- Posts: 2035
- Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:39 am
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
Bogleheads tell you to invest in a three-fund portfolio (no international bond fund) vs PAS four-fund portfolio. Both groups believe in tax efficiency, low fees, the set-and-forget policy and rebalancing when targets get out of line.
It appears to me that Vanguard is taking on the Boglehead approach with their new marketing strategy.
It appears to me that Vanguard is taking on the Boglehead approach with their new marketing strategy.
Felix is a wonderful, wonderful cat.
- abuss368
- Posts: 27850
- Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
- Contact:
Re: Vanguard's Impersonal Advisor Service
Excellent post Rick. Many investors may not realize this.Rick Ferri wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 9:22 pmSimplicity is key. Keep your portfolio in a few good funds and you won't need a robot or a human adviser managing your money.nedsaid wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:44 am Hi Rick, I think the Robo-Advisors are a good thing but we have to realize the limitations of this approach. Pretty much, if you want to talk to a human it will cost you 0.30% a year, if you don't need a human but still want guidance, it will cost you 0.15% a year. If you do-it-yourself, it will cost you nothing except for the expense ratios of the funds.
Rick Ferri
John C. Bogle: “Simplicity is the master key to financial success."