Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Vanguard's Performance Report: Vanguard Funds Surpassed Peers Over Long Term
Old 09-21-2018, 03:11 PM   #1
Full time employment: Posting here.
HNL Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 692
Vanguard's Performance Report: Vanguard Funds Surpassed Peers Over Long Term

It's not just cost, but total performance that counts. There have been some recent discussions as to which of the major trading houses (Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, etc.) are the best.

The article linked below from June 30, 2018, shows that over 1, 3, 5 and 10-year horizons, all classes of Vanguard funds outperformed their peers' funds, with 100% of their funds outperforming in money market funds. The only place they failed to exceed 50% was for bond funds in the one-year category (at 49%). The source of the data is Lipper, a Thomson Reuters Company. I did not verify their findings. The percentages are the percentage of Vanguard funds that outperformed their peers in the same peer category for the reviewed period.

While I realize that other companies may have a better web interface, or better customer service, or make it easier to make changes, performance for people who manage their own accounts is most likely paramount.

Thoughts?

https://investornews.vanguard/perfor...ver-long-term/
__________________

HNL Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 09-21-2018, 04:02 PM   #2
Moderator
MBAustin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,838
Thanks for the report, Bill. It makes sense that VG's advantage is higher for the longer time periods because the effect of fees is cumulative. It's nice to see it documented this way.
__________________

__________________
"One of the funny things about the stock market is that every time one person buys, another sells, and both think they are astute." William Feather
----------------------------------
ER'd Oct. 2010 at 53. Life is good.
MBAustin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2018, 04:33 PM   #3
Full time employment: Posting here.
HNL Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBAustin View Post
It makes sense that VG's advantage is higher for the longer time periods because the effect of fees is cumulative.
Vanguard's advantage due solely to cost may be eroding with the introduction of no-cost funds by Fidelity and others! Next year, Vanguard may not be able to boast this across the board.
HNL Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2018, 06:12 PM   #4
Full time employment: Posting here.
Oz investor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 547
i hold two Vanguard products and several products from rival groups ( not mentioned earlier )

i buy ETFs as hedges ( insurance ) against my bad selection when buying a trend ( or sector ) say i buy into two banks but ALSO by into an ETF ( or two ) focused on the financial sector .

most of the ETFs have performed well but so has the markets since 2011 ( when i started investing heavily )

as Warren Buffet would ask , how will my portfolio look when the tide goes out ??

( i don't know )

maybe the ETFs with their constant re-balancing will prove superior , and maybe they won't .

i don't mind paying slightly extra fees and long as the overall performance covers the extra costs ( higher fees and lower yields when the fund SHOULD be flying is very unattractive to me )
__________________
i hold the Australian listed versions of BHP , and JHG .

You must learn from the mistakes of others. You can't possibly live long enough to make them all yourself.

Samuel Levenson
Oz investor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2018, 06:31 PM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,765
The times are changing. While I hold a fair chunk at VG in a 3 mutual fund portfolio, their advantage has shrunk to nil. Other houses have picked their game up and certainly offer better overall value.
While making rather mundane changes to DM's accounts this week I have dealt with the usual incompetent reps and have realized that repeat calls and follow up are the norm. My personal experience is that they are great as long as you don't need to deal with a person.
__________________
Taking Social Security at 62 because it really doesn't matter that much.
foxfirev5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2018, 06:32 PM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,375
I hold several Vanguard ETF’s in my Fidelity account. Best of both worlds; get the VG results with the Fido website and customer service.
Scuba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2018, 06:36 PM   #7
Full time employment: Posting here.
HNL Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuba View Post
I hold several Vanguard ETF’s in my Fidelity account. Best of both worlds; get the VG results with the Fido website and customer service.
How much does Fidelity add in fees on top of VG's fees? I hold VG in a 401(k) through Merrill Lynch, and they tack on 0.01%.
HNL Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2018, 05:32 AM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
target2019's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,341
Hats off to Vanguard. They beat all but 9-10% of peers' funds in 10 year period. Hope I got that right.
target2019 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2018, 07:28 AM   #9
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfirev5 View Post
The times are changing. While I hold a fair chunk at VG in a 3 mutual fund portfolio, their advantage has shrunk to nil. Other houses have picked their game up and certainly offer better overall value.
I don't agree that Vanguard's advantage has shrunk to nil, but I do agree that Vanguard has forced other mutual fund providers and brokers to lower their fees in order to keep up with the competition, and that is a very good thing for investors. We owe John Bogle and Vanguard a debt of gratitude for that.
JustCurious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2018, 08:14 AM   #10
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 3,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by HNL Bill View Post
It's not just cost, but total performance that counts. There have been some recent discussions as to which of the major trading houses (Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, etc.) are the best.
My thoughts are total performance includes customer satisfaction and I thought that's where this was going but the report apparently only deals with investment return results. We use VG and Fido and they are both excellent. My impression of Schwab is also very positive, so we will probably use at least two of these three going forward.

I don't see where the report says anything about VG vs. Schwab or Fido specifically except in the MM category where VG beat 100% of their peers. Maybe that detail is contained in the fine print. Actually I would've thought their cost advantage would have given them a much higher score in the bond category as well.
__________________
...with no reasonable expectation for ER, I'm just here auditing the AP class.Retired 8/1/15.
jazz4cash is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2018, 08:21 AM   #11
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
target2019's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,341
Going forward is important too.


Others can add their low cost fidelity funds to the picture below.

One aspect missing from the OP study is very important. In the next year, maybe sooner, we will be looking at rolling over (2) 401k accounts as well as multiple funds/stocks from inheritance. To be honest, as a Vanguard customer I have reservations about how well the rollover/transfer processes would go with Vanguard. Still have some time to decide, but we're leaning towards Schwab at this time.
Attached Images
File Type: png Clipboard01.png (3.8 KB, 64 views)
target2019 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2018, 08:40 AM   #12
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
OldShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 2,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustCurious View Post
I don't agree that Vanguard's advantage has shrunk to nil, but I do agree that Vanguard has forced other mutual fund providers and brokers to lower their fees in order to keep up with the competition, and that is a very good thing for investors. We owe John Bogle and Vanguard a debt of gratitude for that.
++1
OldShooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2018, 09:04 AM   #13
Full time employment: Posting here.
VanWinkle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Brighton
Posts: 792
Without Vanguard's low cost mutual funds and ETFs, the competition would still be in the 90s with loads and 12-1b expenses on every fund. Expense ratios of .75 to 1.75 would be the low side if not for the work of John Bogle.
__________________
Retired May 13th(Friday) 2016 at age 61.
VanWinkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2018, 06:37 AM   #14
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 208
For those talking about Fido's zero fee funds and the low cost index funds from Schwab and others ( where they cut Vanguard's fees by 1 basis point in some cases (WOW!!!); my question would be: "So just now you decide to follow suit and offer low fee or (zero fee funds) as Vanguard has done for the past 40 years? So basically you have been screwing me for the past 40 years....Right?" No thanks. You want to impress me....refund me 50% of the fees you were charging me for the past 40 years !!!
MrLoco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2018, 07:16 AM   #15
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 3,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanWinkle View Post
Without Vanguard's low cost mutual funds and ETFs, the competition would still be in the 90s with loads and 12-1b expenses on every fund. Expense ratios of .75 to 1.75 would be the low side if not for the work of John Bogle.
+1
__________________
...with no reasonable expectation for ER, I'm just here auditing the AP class.Retired 8/1/15.
jazz4cash is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2018, 01:23 PM   #16
Full time employment: Posting here.
HNL Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 692
I rolled over both 401(k), beneficiary IRA, and an annuity to VG with no problems.The beneficiary IRA had to be converted to my name with the old company, prior to transfer due to VG policy, making it a two-step process.
HNL Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2018, 01:35 PM   #17
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
OldShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 2,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLoco View Post
... So basically you have been screwing me for the past 40 years....Right? ...
Don't take it personally. They are businesses and they price to maximize profit based on costs and aspirations for share. If you were a shareholder (and you may be if you buy index funds) you would want nothing less.

Vanguard is unique in the industry, not being a stock company but in being owned by its mutual fund shareholders. That's why their prices have been lower.

Recently the game has been changing and all of the for-profit fund companies have had to reduce prices to meet competition. We will eventually see increases if the current prices turn out to be below costs and they are unable to find some other ways to increase revenue.
OldShooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2018, 02:13 PM   #18
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Amethyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,856
It seems analogous to the difference between banks and credit unions. We have paid almost no banking fees, other than trivial wiring fees and modest borrowing costs, for the past 38 years; 38 years ago, that was a huge advantage of belonging to our CU. Now, many banks offer no-fee accounts (although they always have a minimum amount).

Once I made a mistake and overdrew our CU checking account. They charged us $25, then reversed the charge because they love us we are good customers. Would a bank do that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldShooter View Post

Vanguard is unique in the industry, not being a stock company but in being owned by its mutual fund shareholders. That's why their prices have been lower.

.
__________________
If you understood everything I say, you'd be me ~ Miles Davis
'There is only one success – to be able to spend your life in your own way.’ Christopher Morley.
Amethyst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2018, 01:38 AM   #19
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by HNL Bill View Post
How much does Fidelity add in fees on top of VG's fees? I hold VG in a 401(k) through Merrill Lynch, and they tack on 0.01%.


Fidelity does not charge fees to hold assets from VG. They do charge a small commission to purchase them but I have a lot of free trades so didn’t pay anything.
Scuba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2018, 02:01 PM   #20
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North
Posts: 1,484
Assets under Mgmt (trillions):


VG-5.1
Schwab- 3.36
Fidelity- 2.45


FWIW.
__________________

__________________
AA (Stock/Bond/Cash ): 99/0/1% MIX (Small/Mid/Large): 50/25/25% BLEND(US/Foreign): 100/0%, REIT (Real Estate Equity): 50% of Assets

FIRE in 2031 @ 50yrs old (+/- 2yrs) w/ a hypothetical $2.5mil portfolio, 3 appreciated homes worth $1.0mil and rental income to fund my gap years until RMD. Assets will go to an inherited IRA where I plan on watching the investments grow until I die or the trust gets executed.
kgtest is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shortt Term Long Term Thinking GravitySucks Other topics 0 02-02-2017 05:23 PM
Long Term Asset Allocation for the Short Term? Dwhit FIRE and Money 10 08-23-2014 10:12 PM
Work dilema regarding Megacorp request to plan long term when I only have short term Al in Ohio FIRE and Money 32 07-05-2013 04:10 PM
Long term loss combined with long term gain dmpi FIRE and Money 9 12-21-2012 04:27 PM
Short term vs Long term Bonds bank5 Stock Picking and Market Strategy 17 03-24-2009 04:40 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:29 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.