seattle prattle wrote:
the only thing i heard about them is that the fees set you up to not make as much as you would have otherwise. So, i would look at their fee schedule first.
This. It’s the same reasoning as to why passive investing beats active. Those fees will kill your gains.
In a nutshell, if you don't want to drill down too deeply into this, i would simply make sure their fees are less than about 0.4% .
Fees a little higher may be worth it to you, but i would really stay clear of (avoid) fees higher than about 0.8 %.
For actively managed funds or annuities, it is common to see fees in excess of 1.0%. That's not good.
Best of luck.
And also consider that the more money you are talking about, the more this is going to matter. So while it might be okay to run with something like this for the first couple of years of your investing career, just for the convenience, you would probably want to get into something lower fee wise as your savings amass.
So, hey, if it's what it takes to get you started, go for it. Then fine-tune your strategy in subsequent years.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
A much bigger threat is not fees but exposure to the most overvalued parts of the market.
And how’s that worked out in recent years?
seattle prattle wrote:
In a nutshell, if you don't want to drill down too deeply into this, i would simply make sure their fees are less than about 0.4% .
Fees a little higher may be worth it to you, but i would really stay clear of (avoid) fees higher than about 0.8 %.
For actively managed funds or annuities, it is common to see fees in excess of 1.0%. That's not good.
Best of luck.
And also consider that the more money you are talking about, the more this is going to matter. So while it might be okay to run with something like this for the first couple of years of your investing career, just for the convenience, you would probably want to get into something lower fee wise as your savings amass.
So, hey, if it's what it takes to get you started, go for it. Then fine-tune your strategy in subsequent years.
Anyone who understands the gift of compounding will ALWAYS go passive.
Yes on 1 wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
In a nutshell, if you don't want to drill down too deeply into this, i would simply make sure their fees are less than about 0.4% .
Fees a little higher may be worth it to you, but i would really stay clear of (avoid) fees higher than about 0.8 %.
For actively managed funds or annuities, it is common to see fees in excess of 1.0%. That's not good.
Best of luck.
And also consider that the more money you are talking about, the more this is going to matter. So while it might be okay to run with something like this for the first couple of years of your investing career, just for the convenience, you would probably want to get into something lower fee wise as your savings amass.
So, hey, if it's what it takes to get you started, go for it. Then fine-tune your strategy in subsequent years.
Anyone who understands the gift of compounding will ALWAYS go passive.
I know what you mean, but aren't there quite a few actively managed funds with low fee? Like Vanguard funds, and Windsor comes to mind. Just checked it out and it is 0.31 % fee. There are certainly many more.
OU812 wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
A much bigger threat is not fees but exposure to the most overvalued parts of the market.
And how’s that worked out in recent years?
How did it work for you from 2000-2011?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
OU812 wrote:
And how’s that worked out in recent years?
How did it work for you from 2000-2011?
Rather than answer the question, Igy waves the ? . Typical.
Trews wrote:
Are you trying to come clean tonight? Given that this is unflattering to Wall Street insiders like yourself, this is refreshingly honest for you.
He's not a Wall Street insider. The Wall Street insider's are much smarter and know "It's Different this Time".
What happened to my question?
J. Hardy wrote:
What happened to my question?
Did it involve Igy? He had another embarrassing night of posting yesterday and the entire dialogue was deleted.
Gruntz wrote:
J. Hardy wrote:
What happened to my question?
Did it involve Igy? He had another embarrassing night of posting yesterday and the entire dialogue was deleted.
Yes I was very bad I said a poster’s mother wore army boots.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Gruntz wrote:
Did it involve Igy? He had another embarrassing night of posting yesterday and the entire dialogue was deleted.
Yes I was very bad I said a poster’s mother wore army boots.
That reply essentially illustrates what I was asking about. Igy, why do you feel the need to insult those who disagree with you?
J. Hardy wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Yes I was very bad I said a poster’s mother wore army boots.
That reply essentially illustrates what I was asking about. Igy, why do you feel the need to insult those who disagree with you?
Oh but insults are never a one way street. You should know that.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
J. Hardy wrote:
That reply essentially illustrates what I was asking about. Igy, why do you feel the need to insult those who disagree with you?
Oh but insults are never a one way street. You should know that.
Well, I saw the exchange from yesterday and I would say the insults were definitely one way. You faced some criticism, but those are not insults.
So why do you respond that way? Do you actually interpret criticism as an insult?
You better watch your step I may call you a “Harvey Weinstein look-a-like.”
Why care what the guy says that sells you the ETFs?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Why care what the guy says that sells you the ETFs?
Because he’s got to be smarter than the guy who has lost millions of his investors' money.
Truth or Dare wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Why care what the guy says that sells you the ETFs?
Because he’s got to be smarter than the guy who has lost millions of his investors' money.
No, smart enough to know there will be plenty of investors holding passive investments to the bottom.