Whats your overall expense ratio?

[retire@40]

It's comments like this that inspire other posters to call you a noodge. 

I don't know about everyone's 401(k)s but I do see ERs discussed from time to time.  The TSP's ERs are right on their website.  Not only did I provide a weighted average, I also included all the brokerage trading commissions & fees. 

Were you going to discuss your ER, or just complain about everyone else's?

I didn't realize that I was complaining.  I thought I was stating a fact that most people, including myself, don't track their weighted average ER, and some people may have a hard time finding out their ER, but I take it you think otherwise.  In fact, I even said it was a good idea and that I would even start doing it.

I thought I was adding to the discussion with some helpful information, but next time I'll footnote it with "except Nords" so you don't take it personally.

 

[ats5g]

0.24%.

- Alec

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I didn't realize that I was complaining. I thought I was stating a fact that most people, including myself, don't track their weighted average ER, and some people may have a hard time finding out their ER, but I take it you think otherwise. In fact, I even said it was a good idea and that I would even start doing it.

I thought I was adding to the discussion with some helpful information, but next time I'll footnote it with "except Nords" so you don't take it personally.

You could just change your name to "The Noodge" and simplify it for everyone

By the way, everyone benefits from a noodge. Not that it would ever stop me from giving you a hard time about it.

 

[Lancelot]

According to Vanguard .20%

Most of my portfolio is invested in Index funds and I rarely trade my individual stocks.

Not sure buy and hold is the best method, I sit on a profit, then watch it evaporate. I think I should change tactics and nail down a few capital gains 8)

Anyway, if my financial inactivity denys me a profit, it also protects me from doing something stupid...

Lance

 

[retire@40]

By the way, everyone benefits from a noodge.  Not that it would ever stop me from giving you a hard time about it.

As long as someone benefits, call me whatever you want.  

My style has always been to look for a better way of doing something however small the betterment. I always try to look at things from a different angle than most other people if I can, and I try to be as direct and succinct as possible.

I always expected my employees to challenge my methods and systems and I respected those who found faults and had ways of improving them.  I never liked yesmen nor people who complained about a problem without being able at least to offer a solution to that problem.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

As long as someone benefits, call me whatever you want.

Do you prefer Sally or Shirley?

Wait...thats Laurences thing...

 

[kaudrey]

Weighted average = .37%, thanks to TSP funds.

 

[retire@40]

Do you prefer Sally or Shirley?

That's fine. Just don't call me late for dinner.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Sold.

You are now the noodge that was late for dinner.

A little long, but I can work with it.

 

[laurence]

Do you prefer Sally or Shirley?

Wait...thats Laurences thing...

Who asks names? I always just ask price!

 

[Texas Proud]

At .36 with my Vanguard funds, but shoot up to .46 with my 401(k).... can not do much with thier high fees.

 

[maddythebeagle]

from the responses here and another thread, it looks like the folks that work for government have the lowest cost savings plans.

 

[Kwirk]

The price for TSP is right but the investment options are limited. Basically 5 funds to choose from: special long-term treasuries without risk of loss, S&P500, DJW4500, Morgan Stanley Capital International EAFE (Europe, Australasia, Far East) index, Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate (LBA) index.

 

[mathjak107]

shouldnt it be expense ratio vs return..i dont mind paying a little extra for performance...i have my actual portfolios which average a little under 1% which perform great..i then have my hypothetical mix of etf's and indexes that i track and i would love to be able to buy thatand have a nice low er..but the performance is just not even close to my actively managed funds....
i have a long term mix and a medium term mix of funds.

the long term mix

1999 +29
2000 -10.8
2001 -6.4
2002 -17.1
2003 +46.1
2004 +12.4
2005 +11.2
2006 +3.1




medium term portfolio

1999 +12.2
2000 +2.7
2001 +1.3
2002 -6.4
2003 +33
2004 +11.5
2005 +8.2
2006 +3.1

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

There are a number of funds and fund combinations that produce similar short term results at a lower cost and with a lot less complexity.

 

[Nords]

shouldnt it be expense ratio vs return..i dont mind paying a little extra for performance...

Well, that would be an interesting study.

I don't mind paying for performance either, as long as my money is promptly & cheerfully refunded when the performance fails to materialize. Is that how your fund managers are doing business? Or do they get to keep your fees no matter what happens?

Even worse, do they get more of your money when you have more? A $4B mutual fund isn't twice as expensive to run than a $2B mutual fund, yet most fund managers get twice as much money for achieving fund bloat instead of for doubling returns.

 

[TromboneAl]

shouldnt it be expense ratio vs return..i dont mind paying a little extra for performance...

Plenty of studies to show that load funds don't perform better.

 

[mickeyd]

.13 but I'm a hell of an indexer who refuses to give away even one BP that I can retain.

I'm happy as hell to just beat most of the pack if I can do it on the cheap! 8)

 

[mathjak107]

well while there is no correlation between fund expenses and performance this is true...in my case i have been using a fidelity fund oriented newsletter for decades now.the performance is excellent.far better than i could have done on my own and with a lot more discipline than i could have done on my own.the actively managed funds the newletter uses as a diversified mix have out performed any index or etf combo i was able to put together on my own as i always have a few hypothetical ones going just to see if i would do better with no management.the less than 1% er i pay a year may be high by index standards but im very happy with the overall performance...the last few years certainly have been a stock pickers market leaving most index's way behind...right now as far as managed funds fidelity has the lowest costs and biggest selection around allowing very nice diversified mixes to be put together that work well...id love an er of .25 but im not willing to give up any performance.

 

[unclemick]

Belief in managed fund performance is male(unusually so) biological and an incurable disease. Expenses matter.

Note that even indices sliced too thin can experience high turnover rates - a cost not easily teased out but there just the same.

Took over twenty years to convince myself - since it is incurable - still play with 15% of my portfolio.

 

[samclem]

I agree on all counts. Intellectually I am convinced that active management and short-term timing don't improve performance, but the call to the dark side is strong. I'm tempted to test the waters when I see the latest back-tested system yielding 20% annually or even the results from "truly in existence" newsletter/advisor portfolios (that I know often ignore the frictional factors of taxes, advisor/subscription costs, etc). I may eventually carve out a small amount as you've done to satisfy the urge to tinker with things.

I subscribed to a newsletter when I first started investing, and I built one of their model portfolios using my real money. The model portfolio had a really good performance record going back many years. On "Black Monday" in Oct 1987, when stocks plunged about 23% in one day, I called the recorded 800 number provided by the newsletter to find out what they were recommending (this was before the Internet). Well, imagine my surprise to learn that, according to the recorded voice, they had recommended that investors sell stock funds and go to cash on 17 October, two days before the plunge. How convenient. I then understood how they had achieved their remarkabe performance record. Maybe these guys can't get away with this anymore given the transparency offered by the Internet.

samclem

 

[retire@40]

When you calculate your ER, do you base it on your entire portfolio including cash accounts or just your non-cash portfolio?

For example, a portfolio of 100% S&P might have a .18% ER.

A portfolio of all cash has a 0% ER.

Would a portfolio of half of each give you a .09% ER?

 

[Nords]

When you calculate your ER, do you base it on your entire portfolio including cash accounts or just your non-cash portfolio?

How 'bout this:
- List all the investments in your retirement portfolio. If cash is a part of your portfolio, then list it. Include the fair market value of the beaver cheese futures as well.
- List the % portion of the total that each investment comprises in the portfolio.
- List the investment's ER.
- Multiply the % portion times the respective ER.
- Sum the products.

For example, a portfolio of 100% S&P might have a .18% ER.
A portfolio of all cash has a 0% ER.
Would a portfolio of half of each give you a .09% ER?

Yup. Is this a trick question?

Note that Fidelity Cash Reserves (FDRXX), what I consider a cash portion of our retirement account, has a 0.43% ER. OTOH our NFCU five-year CD has a 0% ER.

 

[retire@40]

How 'bout this:
- List all the investments in your retirement portfolio.  If cash is a part of your portfolio, then list it.  Include the fair market value of the beaver cheese futures as well.
- List the % portion of the total that each investment comprises in the portfolio.
- List the investment's ER.
- Multiply the % portion times the respective ER.
- Sum the products.

Thanks, that's how I did it, but just wanted some confirmation that cash accounts, US bonds, etc should be included since I saw some pretty low ERs in the poll.  Just finished mine.  I was predicting about .25, but came in at .42.

You are right, I never paid attention to the ER in money market accounts, but they are higher than some of my equity accounts.  I don't get it.

So I take it US bonds have no expense ratio?  There has to be some built-in cost to running the program.  Or are those expenses paid with "outside" money?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

See, there you go again. I dont count cash positions as part of my ER, so mine is actually a little lower than I said it was...