Expense ratio 0.16% vs 0.07% worthwhile?

[gwraigty]

Just in general, I think too much emphasis is placed on having the lowest ER vs. so many other variables when choosing investments.

 

[NW-Bound]

Just in general, I think too much emphasis is placed on having the lowest ER vs. so many other variables when choosing investments.

It's because it is the only thing that is constant from year to year, while the fund performance tends to vary. So, people use the only criteria that can be guaranteed, while passing over others.

 

[OldShooter]

It's because it is the only thing that is constant from year to year, while the fund performance tends to vary. So, people use the only criteria that can be guaranteed, while passing over others.

Agreed. Also, there are a lot of older studies that show ER to be the best predictor of fund performance. By "older" I mean before the recent rounds of price-cutting. Now, with free and single-digit fees I wonder of the study results are still useful. Time will tell, I guess.

 

[NW-Bound]

So, back to the 0.09% difference in fees between Wellesley/Wellington and index funds, I think the former have enough merits and have proven to beat DIY blend of index funds, as detailed in previous posts.

This means they generate enough returns to overcome the bitty fees. The fund managers earn their keep. I would not have any problem investing with them.