t*m
发帖数: 4414 | 1 听电台的money show，不建议买target funds (or lifestyle funds)
比如fidelity 2040 or schwab 2035 啥的。
为什么啊？ cost? |
K****D
发帖数: 30533 | 2 Maybe, but cost is really low with Vanguard target funds.
【在 t*m 的大作中提到】
: 听电台的money show，不建议买target funds (or lifestyle funds)
: 比如fidelity 2040 or schwab 2035 啥的。
: 为什么啊？ cost?
|
t*m
发帖数: 4414 | 3 还有什么原因呢？
【在 K****D 的大作中提到】
: Maybe, but cost is really low with Vanguard target funds.
|
K****D
发帖数: 30533 | 4 I can't think of.
【在 t*m 的大作中提到】
: 还有什么原因呢？
|
k****n
发帖数: 1334 | 5 电台自己没说吗？
【在 t*m 的大作中提到】
: 听电台的money show，不建议买target funds (or lifestyle funds)
: 比如fidelity 2040 or schwab 2035 啥的。
: 为什么啊？ cost?
|
t*m
发帖数: 4414 | 6 no (or I missed it)
【在 k****n 的大作中提到】
: 电台自己没说吗？
|
f*******r
发帖数: 5301 | 7 because you should get vanguard 2045
【在 t*m 的大作中提到】
: 听电台的money show，不建议买target funds (or lifestyle funds)
: 比如fidelity 2040 or schwab 2035 啥的。
: 为什么啊？ cost?
|
m**********r
发帖数: 887 | 8 What if there is a 20 year recession like japan while you are young and
high in equity, and then there is a bull market but you are retired and high
in bond?
【在 t*m 的大作中提到】
: 听电台的money show，不建议买target funds (or lifestyle funds)
: 比如fidelity 2040 or schwab 2035 啥的。
: 为什么啊？ cost?
|
d****n
发帖数: 10034 | 9 you can always sell
high
【在 m**********r 的大作中提到】
: What if there is a 20 year recession like japan while you are young and
: high in equity, and then there is a bull market but you are retired and high
: in bond?
|
s**********d
发帖数: 36899 | 10
因为电台里那个SB.
【在 t*m 的大作中提到】
: 听电台的money show，不建议买target funds (or lifestyle funds)
: 比如fidelity 2040 or schwab 2035 啥的。
: 为什么啊？ cost?
|
|
|
c***n
发帖数: 314 | |
s*******d
发帖数: 126 | 12 yes, cost and asset allocation.
If you are not with Vanguard, who charges a 0.19% fee per year, the next
bunch of best thing (such as fidelity or T Rowe Price), charges 0.7% every
year. This difference in 0.5% is mind boggling crazy. Suppose that one needs
4% of the assets to live on after retirement each year. And let's say that
taxes cuts it down to 3%+. Can you imagine paying an extra 15% (that's 0.5/3
) of your annual living expense to have someone manage your money? that's
two months of living expenses that you can save by using Vanguard.
Also, I think there is not an agreement in the industry as how the asset
allocation should change as one gets older. Some funds are definitely more
agressive than others, or worse managed - I have read somewhere that some
target-date funds lost more than the broad market in 2008. You probably can
find more details on how different funds allocate things and change them
differently.
Anyhow, to sum up, one word, Vanguard.
【在 t*m 的大作中提到】
: 听电台的money show，不建议买target funds (or lifestyle funds)
: 比如fidelity 2040 or schwab 2035 啥的。
: 为什么啊？ cost?
|
t*m
发帖数: 4414 | 13 (1) Why vanguard has so low cost?
(2) Why other brokers (eg. Fidelity) still survive?
needs
that
/3
can
【在 s*******d 的大作中提到】
: yes, cost and asset allocation.
: If you are not with Vanguard, who charges a 0.19% fee per year, the next
: bunch of best thing (such as fidelity or T Rowe Price), charges 0.7% every
: year. This difference in 0.5% is mind boggling crazy. Suppose that one needs
: 4% of the assets to live on after retirement each year. And let's say that
: taxes cuts it down to 3%+. Can you imagine paying an extra 15% (that's 0.5/3
: ) of your annual living expense to have someone manage your money? that's
: two months of living expenses that you can save by using Vanguard.
: Also, I think there is not an agreement in the industry as how the asset
: allocation should change as one gets older. Some funds are definitely more
|
d****n
发帖数: 10034 | 14 vanguard is a non profit organization.
except cost, there are other considerations.
【在 t*m 的大作中提到】
: (1) Why vanguard has so low cost?
: (2) Why other brokers (eg. Fidelity) still survive?
:
: needs
: that
: /3
: can
|
s*******d
发帖数: 126 | 15 (1) Vanguard mostly has index funds, which is not actively managed by
anybody, hence there is no fees to pay for managers, buy-and-selling,
capital gain taxes, etc.
(2) There are many reasons why other financial firms still survive and
strive. A lot of people believe in the word "professional", because they
fear that personal finance is a very complex thing they are scared of it and
would rather pay someone to do it. Plus, if you pay someone to do something
, they've got to be able to do it better, no? Fundamentally, it probably
boils down to the mentality people have in this country, that is, people are
willing to pay for services. (I personally am not against paying for
services, I just don't want to pay too much of it). Also, most people have
no ideas that these small differences, 0.4% here, 0.3% there, add up to a
great difference over a long strech period of time. So they think, okay, it'
s not a big deal and let the professionals do their job Just think of how
many people who carry credit card balance that have interest rates exceeding
30%, and they don't even bother to find cards that have lower balance. If
30% interest rate is not making a difference, what is 0.5%!?
【在 t*m 的大作中提到】
: (1) Why vanguard has so low cost?
: (2) Why other brokers (eg. Fidelity) still survive?
:
: needs
: that
: /3
: can
|
t*m
发帖数: 4414 | 16 In this case, should I close my fidelity IRA and transfer it to Vanguard?
and
something
are
it'
exceeding
【在 s*******d 的大作中提到】
: (1) Vanguard mostly has index funds, which is not actively managed by
: anybody, hence there is no fees to pay for managers, buy-and-selling,
: capital gain taxes, etc.
: (2) There are many reasons why other financial firms still survive and
: strive. A lot of people believe in the word "professional", because they
: fear that personal finance is a very complex thing they are scared of it and
: would rather pay someone to do it. Plus, if you pay someone to do something
: , they've got to be able to do it better, no? Fundamentally, it probably
: boils down to the mentality people have in this country, that is, people are
: willing to pay for services. (I personally am not against paying for
|
s*******d
发帖数: 126 | 17 no, this is not true. Vanguard is a for-profit company, but the business
model is such that the company itself is owned by all of its mutual funds,
hence by all the investors. The profit which it makes gets returned to its
investors, or the mutual funds, however you wish to see it. In effect, the
company is operating at cost.
one interesting thing about Vanguard is that the company does sometimes
employ external advisors, and Vanguard can somehow manage to negotiate with
them very frugally on the behave of the company - they were literally
negotiating the fees on the scales of 1 basis point.
All this can be found on the internet. John Bogle did a senatoral testimony
a few years back, and you guessed it, on mutual fund industries and fees and
what not. He explained a lot about Vanguard. It was quite fascinating to
read, as I remembered.
【在 d****n 的大作中提到】
: vanguard is a non profit organization.
: except cost, there are other considerations.
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 18 Passive index fund (i.e. Vanguard & most EFT) is based on the "efficient
market" hypothesis, and market is close to efficient only if there are
sufficient active managers (arbitragers) to actively allocate financial
resources according to each company's intrinsic economic value. So active &
passive investment are the ying & yang of investment. Passive investment
would no longer be a valid investment option w/o the existence of active
investment managers.
and
something
are
【在 s*******d 的大作中提到】
: (1) Vanguard mostly has index funds, which is not actively managed by
: anybody, hence there is no fees to pay for managers, buy-and-selling,
: capital gain taxes, etc.
: (2) There are many reasons why other financial firms still survive and
: strive. A lot of people believe in the word "professional", because they
: fear that personal finance is a very complex thing they are scared of it and
: would rather pay someone to do it. Plus, if you pay someone to do something
: , they've got to be able to do it better, no? Fundamentally, it probably
: boils down to the mentality people have in this country, that is, people are
: willing to pay for services. (I personally am not against paying for
|
t*m
发帖数: 4414 | 19 fidelty, schwab 的index funds 不是 passive的？
&
【在 l**********t 的大作中提到】
: Passive index fund (i.e. Vanguard & most EFT) is based on the "efficient
: market" hypothesis, and market is close to efficient only if there are
: sufficient active managers (arbitragers) to actively allocate financial
: resources according to each company's intrinsic economic value. So active &
: passive investment are the ying & yang of investment. Passive investment
: would no longer be a valid investment option w/o the existence of active
: investment managers.
:
: and
: something
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 20 Because in my opinion, most target funds are way too aggressive for average investors.
Another issue is most underlying funds in the target funds are just mediocre.
【在 t*m 的大作中提到】
: 听电台的money show，不建议买target funds (or lifestyle funds)
: 比如fidelity 2040 or schwab 2035 啥的。
: 为什么啊？ cost?
|
|
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 21 Actually, I do not mind to pay 50-100 base points more than Vanguard index
funds if the fund managers have long and consistent good track record, small
/reasonable AUM, low turn over, investment strategy and philosophy that I
understand. I also do demand better bear market protection.
needs
that
/3
【在 s*******d 的大作中提到】
: yes, cost and asset allocation.
: If you are not with Vanguard, who charges a 0.19% fee per year, the next
: bunch of best thing (such as fidelity or T Rowe Price), charges 0.7% every
: year. This difference in 0.5% is mind boggling crazy. Suppose that one needs
: 4% of the assets to live on after retirement each year. And let's say that
: taxes cuts it down to 3%+. Can you imagine paying an extra 15% (that's 0.5/3
: ) of your annual living expense to have someone manage your money? that's
: two months of living expenses that you can save by using Vanguard.
: Also, I think there is not an agreement in the industry as how the asset
: allocation should change as one gets older. Some funds are definitely more
|
s**********d
发帖数: 36899 | 22
错了。
【在 d****n 的大作中提到】
: vanguard is a non profit organization.
: except cost, there are other considerations.
|
t*m
发帖数: 4414 | 23 the underlying funds in the target funds are just some index funds
I feel the long-term target funds (e.g. FFFFX) behave just like large cap
index funds (e.g.VFIAX)
average investors.
mediocre.
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Because in my opinion, most target funds are way too aggressive for average investors.
: Another issue is most underlying funds in the target funds are just mediocre.
|
l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 24 target date funds are simplified asset allocation strategies for retirement
saving, ideal for those who don't have the resources to design their own
asset allocation / research managers / rebalance among asset classes, etc.
The strategy assumes a) you will retire around xxxx for fund xxxx. b) you
makes periodical contribution to the fund till retirement. The fund will automatically shift from equity to bond as you approach your retirement age (so a 2040 fund will significant allocation to fixed incomes by the year 2035)
If you are investing for other purpose (with various investment horizon) and
/or you only invest a lump-sum (and not going to contribute periodically),
target date fund is not a good strategy for you. Try the risk-based balance
funds.
If you are into investments/trading (probably the targeted audiences of the the talk show, who are the revenue source for retail brokerage firms), TDF may not be an appealing option, as least from retail brokerage's perspective.
【在 t*m 的大作中提到】
: the underlying funds in the target funds are just some index funds
: I feel the long-term target funds (e.g. FFFFX) behave just like large cap
: index funds (e.g.VFIAX)
:
: average investors.
: mediocre.
|
c*****x
发帖数: 429 | 25 Fidelity target date funds consist of mostly active funds that you would
otherwise not want to buy individually.
For example, top 10 holding of FFFFX (Freedom 2040):
Fidelity Series All-Sector Equity 10.44%
Fidelity Series Large Cap Value 10.22%
Fidelity Disciplined Equity 9.53%
Fidelity Growth Company 8.28%
Fidelity Series Commodity Strategy 7.15%
Fidelity Series 100 Index 6.55%
Fidelity Series Investment Grade Bond 6.38%
Fidelity High Income 4.53%
Fidelity Capital & Income 4.47%
Fidelity Diversified International 4.43%
With an expense ratio of 0.81, and the above somewhat obscure funds, I would
never consider Fidelity Freedom funds over Vanguard ones.
【在 t*m 的大作中提到】
: the underlying funds in the target funds are just some index funds
: I feel the long-term target funds (e.g. FFFFX) behave just like large cap
: index funds (e.g.VFIAX)
:
: average investors.
: mediocre.
|
t*m
发帖数: 4414 | 26 good point. FFFFX has high expense ratio than Vanguard counterpart, VFORX
(1) fidelity now offers "K" target funds with lower expense
(2) look at VFORX and FFFFX for the past decade, their return is similar.
we don't see the advantage of vanguard's low cost
(3) Many people's 401K is at Fidelity, and the plan does not offer VFORX.
would
【在 c*****x 的大作中提到】
: Fidelity target date funds consist of mostly active funds that you would
: otherwise not want to buy individually.
: For example, top 10 holding of FFFFX (Freedom 2040):
: Fidelity Series All-Sector Equity 10.44%
: Fidelity Series Large Cap Value 10.22%
: Fidelity Disciplined Equity 9.53%
: Fidelity Growth Company 8.28%
: Fidelity Series Commodity Strategy 7.15%
: Fidelity Series 100 Index 6.55%
: Fidelity Series Investment Grade Bond 6.38%
|
c**********l
发帖数: 606 | 27 1% is a lot.
good tracking record is not worth anything.
good al weather protection will probably cost you a few percent in terms of
EV.
small
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Actually, I do not mind to pay 50-100 base points more than Vanguard index
: funds if the fund managers have long and consistent good track record, small
: /reasonable AUM, low turn over, investment strategy and philosophy that I
: understand. I also do demand better bear market protection.
:
: needs
: that
: /3
|
S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 28 Certainly there is not many guys worth 1% extra, guys at IVA and Matthews
Asia are probably exceptional examples. I am happy to get into I share.
of
【在 c**********l 的大作中提到】
: 1% is a lot.
: good tracking record is not worth anything.
: good al weather protection will probably cost you a few percent in terms of
: EV.
:
: small
|
c*****x
发帖数: 429 | 29 I don't see much difference between Freedom K funds and Freedom funds. For
example, the top holdings of FFKFX (Freedom K 2040):
Fidelity Series All-Sector Equity F 10.44%
Fidelity Series Large Cap Value F 10.21%
Fidelity Disciplined Equity F 9.53%
Fidelity Growth Company F 8.28%
Fidelity Series Commodity Strategy F 7.16%
Fidelity Series 100 Index 6.55%
Fidelity Series Investment Grade Bond F 6.37%
Fidelity High Income F 4.53%
Fidelity Capital & Income F 4.47%
Fidelity Diversified International F 4.43%
with an expense ratio 0.61. It is only marginally better than Freedom 2040.
Still consists of almost all expensive active funds, and seemly randomly
chosen ones thrown together.
I will not buy these funds myself.
【在 t*m 的大作中提到】
: good point. FFFFX has high expense ratio than Vanguard counterpart, VFORX
: (1) fidelity now offers "K" target funds with lower expense
: (2) look at VFORX and FFFFX for the past decade, their return is similar.
: we don't see the advantage of vanguard's low cost
: (3) Many people's 401K is at Fidelity, and the plan does not offer VFORX.
:
: would
|
a*********g
发帖数: 8087 | 30 那些历史收益数据都是抛掉管理费的吧
似乎fidelity也没有差太多
【在 c*****x 的大作中提到】
: I don't see much difference between Freedom K funds and Freedom funds. For
: example, the top holdings of FFKFX (Freedom K 2040):
: Fidelity Series All-Sector Equity F 10.44%
: Fidelity Series Large Cap Value F 10.21%
: Fidelity Disciplined Equity F 9.53%
: Fidelity Growth Company F 8.28%
: Fidelity Series Commodity Strategy F 7.16%
: Fidelity Series 100 Index 6.55%
: Fidelity Series Investment Grade Bond F 6.37%
: Fidelity High Income F 4.53%
|
|
|
t*m
发帖数: 4414 | 31 it's my feeling too.
For
【在 a*********g 的大作中提到】
: 那些历史收益数据都是抛掉管理费的吧
: 似乎fidelity也没有差太多
|
