skip to main content

Household Finances

Should I invest in vanguard index fund?

15 years ago

I heard a lot about index fund and vanguard. Should I invest in vanguard index fund?

Comments (9)

fandlil
15 years ago
Before anyone can give you an informed answer to your question, it is necessary to know a little bit about your circumstances and what your investment objectives are.

For instance, if you're investing to buy a new car in about a year, the answer to your questions is NO. In such a case you should probably put your money into a CD, because with such a short time horizon you do not want to put your principle at risk.

However, if you have a long time horizon like 10 years or more and you're saving for retirement or to pay college expenses for a 6 year old child, the answer would be YES. But then your next question should be: HOW MUCH RISK SHOULD I TAKE? That depends on the length of your time horizon, and you can control your risk level by adjusting your asset allocation -- the percent you put in stock index funds and bond index funds. An aggressive allocation would be, say, 80% in stocks and 20% in bonds. Then, over the years, as your time horizon shortens, you gradually adjust you asset allocation to a more conservative level, say, eventually to 80% in bonds and 20% in stocks.

This is all explained in easy to follow terms in a new book, THE SMARTEST INVESTMENT BOOK YOU'LL EVER NEED, by Daniel R. Solin.
inez_2008
15 years ago
Vanguard is a great company if you just want index fund. Vanguard started the index fund revolution and is probably one of the best in offering index fund choices, although fidelity and others have somewhat caught up on the low fee structure. You can also go with ETF on index investing which allows you to trade intra-day.

If you want to invest in more than just index fund, you want to make sure you stay with great fund managers. Most of the fund managers are not that good and not worth the fee they charge, but a few of them are just excellent and you should find a few and stick with them. Check out Fund Mojo . It has a report on the best active fund managers based on historical performance, volatility, fee, manager tenure etc.
Related Discussions
Vanguards 'dividend' funds?
Q
Comments (8)
No, dividends are not tax-free in Canada. A Canadian investor owning Canadian stocks has a method of calculation that gives a substantial dividdend tax credit, increased substantially last year, meaning that s/he pays a low rate of tax on such dividends - but does not escape tax entirely. With one exception. If s/he is single and has *no other income*, regular tax credits added to the dividend tax credit team up to mean that s/he can earn about $49,000. annually before becoming tax-liable. Except ... in our province, the "taxpayer" would have to pay Ontario Health Levy of about $600. at that level of income. With a low-income spouse, charitable or political contributions, (and/or high rate of eligible medical costs, rather unusual in Canada, as we do not pay fees directly for most medical services), the tax-free level goes higher, due to additional credits. If s/he has other income, the rate of tax on Canadian dividends is lower - but s/he doesn't escape tax entirely. Which is why I much prefer to earn Canadian dividends over earning interest, which is taxed at top rate. The investment method that the guy whose 10-year record, back-checked for 20 years, I've followed uses a Canadian equivalent of the "Dogs of the Dow" system. Based originally on the Dow-Jones Industrial average, they picked the 10 stocks paying the highest rate of dividend with cheapest price and bought a position in each. Or, in the Canadian system, bought a position in each of the cheapest 5. A third system was to drop the cheapest priced one, as one possibly in trouble, maybe having suffered recent slide in stock price but dividend rate having been maintained till now, but possibly about to be cut. Then to buy a double-sized position in the second cheapest. That last, though more volatile, over a long term sometimes turned in the best rate of total return (if you don't mind riding roller-coasters). The investor re-balanced once per year, and it took about an hour or two to do the calculations. Leave everything alone through the rest of the year. In the Canadian system, usually about 70% of the holdings carried forward from one year to the next, so one had low levels of commissions to buy and sell. His system out-performed over 90% of mutual funds' managers records, and the market averages. Plus, very few mutual fund managers succeed in outperforming market averages over a number of years ... so in a number of cases it makes sense to buy Exchange Traded Funds, and pay under 1% fees. Actually, a substantial portion of the holdings of a number of fund managers is ETFs. In Canada, we pay higher rates of management expense to mutual fund managers than you do, especially the equity-based ones, which I prefer, so I haven't bought a mutual fund in the last 15 years. Learn to be my own manager, and stick the mutual fund manager's fee in my pocket. Something to be considered is that in a heavy correction, stocks paying dividends tend to slide less that the average. And a few stocks have had a record of growth in amount of dividend paid every year for the past 40 (I think J & J) and some others for almost that long. Now that the market is so much broader than in earlier years, it might be well to consider a wider-ranging system to use as base for one's evaluation than the Dow-Jones 30 Industials. But stay with large, quality companies. Learn how money works - an interesting hobby ... that pays well!! Very few objective, unbiased advisors around. ole joyful
...See More
Young family investing: where to start?
Q
Comments (21)
I found that, though I can have certificates issued for mutual fund ownership (no fee), or stocks (about $35. each), I cannot have a stock certificAte issued for an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) in Canada. Which means that I cannot use the evidence of ownership of an ETF as security to arrange a line of credit or loan with my bank/credit union, at low rate of interest. I can use it as collateral with the stockbroker who holds the fund, as well as others of my assets, in his electronic data base ... but my experience has usually been that the stockbroker usually charges at least 1% higher rate than at the bank, which is an appreciable difference, when compounded over time. Sometimes I have little asset easily available as ready cash, or that I choose to liquidate now to make available as money in case of an emergency, as I may not like the price available, or the sales commission required. As I sometimes lack available ready-cash, I have a fully-secured Line of Credit, backed by certificates of stocks and mutual funds, to obtain a low rate of interest - currently about 6.25%, but unused at the moment. Then I can use a credit card in an emergency, then use my line of credit to pay off that amount in full before it starts accruing interest, unless the credit card carries 0% rate, which is not the case, as I have had my card for several years. The trouble is that the interest paid on a loan used for an emergency or consumption is almost always not deductible and I prefer to use loans for investment, thus making them deductible. So when I use an emergency loan for emergency, which is seldom deductible, I stop investing for a while and use that part of current income to pay off that non-deductible-interest loan as quickly as possible. Then I start using that regular saving to begin investing again, plus may borrow to invest, if I feel that the situation justifies it. Also, in my Canadian situation most of the time, I can borrow for investing at almost no net cost. Are you familiar with the Rule of 72? Divide 72 by the rate of gain/growth that you are getting and the result will show you the number of years that it will take for your investment to double. Thus, investment return of 6% will double in 12 years ... at 9% will double in 8 years. But it's not the raw figure that counts. If your bond pays 5% and you are in 20% tax bracket, that means that 1% is lost to tax, so your after-tax rate of return is actually 4%. But when your bond matures, you'll get back only the number of dollars invested originally, so those equal-value dollars suffer annual erosion of value due to inflation. If you assume inflation to be 3%, that leaves your effective rate of return at only 1%. Which means that it'll take 72 years for my $1.00 current return on invested asset to become $2.00. I bought a long-term quality Canadian stock 40 years ago for $4.20, that paid me about a dime or so a year in dividend, which is tax-advantaged here. Over the years, it's paid about 3% or so, or about 2.5% after taxes. A few months ago I could have sold that stock for $107.+ per share, and a few months later for about $89.50, and since it recovered to about $101.00, then last Friday dropped to about $96.50. Did I choose ot sell it? Not on your life! It has grown well for me over the years, and is currently a high quality stock. As the stock has grown well over the years, you can see my reasoning when I say that I do not feel the need to make any calculated deduction from current dividend rate to allow for the erosion of value of the basic investment due to inflation. Current after-tax income of 2.5%, divided into 72, shows that those dividends reinvested will double in about 30 years ... to my mind, a lot better than taking 72 years to do it. When I calculated the rate of growth of the stock a while ago, I think that I calculated that to be about 7% compounded. So you can see my reasons for being happy with that investment. That's one of my better ones - one of my equity-based mutual funds has taken over 20 years to slightly more than double. I'm not very pleased with the folks who have managed it over the years - and they've changed several times. Good wishes as you pursue your savings and investment program. ole joyful
...See More
Vanguard anyone?
Q
Comments (23)
You say "I have held a Vanguard 500 fund in one of my IRAs for 12 years, it has done ok but just ok" That is because the Vanguard 500 fund is specifically intended to capture the returns of the S&P 500, which represents the domestic large-cap asset category. That category has done ok but just ok over the last 10 years--more specifically, it has underperformed most other asset categories in that period. Specifically, in the 10 years ending June 30, 2007, the Vanguard S&P 500 fund has returned an average of 7.05% per year. If instead you had bought the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index, which includes all stocks and not just large-cap, you would have done slightly better: 7.6% per year over the last ten years. Yet another alternative is the STAR fund, which is a globally diversified fund that includes both stocks and bonds. That fund returned 8.69% per year over the past ten. Finally, if your crystal ball was in perfect working order ten years ago, you could have bought their Energy Fund and made a tidy 17.83% per year over the past ten years. Of course, you really do need a crystal ball to predict what is going to happen to various asset categories in the future. Trying to predict it from looking at the past is like driving while looking only in your rear-view mirror. This is not a property of Vanguard -- it is a property of the markets in general.
...See More
Dumb Bunny Question on Mutual Funds
Q
Comments (20)
I agree also. Sometimes I have thought that annual rebalancing was just another form of "churning" although not so blatant. Chisue, brokers make money from your portfolio through sales commissions (when you buy or sell), account fees, and/or management fees paid directly by you to them; and also get some money from the mutual funds themselves for holding your shares -- paid indirectly by you through the fees that the mutual funds deduct from the funds' earnings. I have not been impressed with paying a percentage management fee either. That adds up to quite a lot of $ over time, and generally what you get is a computer generated "plan" and computer-triggered rebalancing ( sometimes to your tax detriment, if not in a tax sheltered account) -- not a real live person looking at your account and maybe noticing that your funds are performing worse than the average and need to be changed. There are "fee for service" financial advisors out there, you pay a set price one time for a certain amount of planning and/or advice. The idea is, they will not be influenced by needs to meet sales goals, generate continuing income, commissions etc. I have no experience with one. It is pretty easy, with a bit of reading and perusing Morningstar and the companies' websites (like TRowePrice), to figure out which funds have been consistently better performers with low expense and management fees. Index funds make it even simpler. Morningstar has easy to use search tools and you can compare funds. I would check out a book from the library to get a basic understanding of all this. Get one that explains what different investments are, different kinds of stocks, what brokers do etc -- not one that is out to tell you a path to riches. Read Money or Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazines. And also call your broker and ask him to explain it to you. He should be willing to give a quick assessment of your portfolio and recommend any other purchases, if you are going to buy through him. Tell him you have x$ to invest and ask for a recommendation based on your current holdings. The danger is, some firms have in the past made a practice of "pushing" certain funds and investments to meet sales targets without regard to the needs of the client. It all depends on the firm and broker. I prefer to have accounts directly with Vanguard and TRowePrice (Fidelity, wellsfargo, and CharlesSchwab are among others I would consider) and just choose and buy myself. I use an on-line tool to decide how much should be invested in bond, or stocks, or cash. Their yearly fees are not very much, some companies are less than others, and if you have enough invested they waive the yearly fee. PS "nearly cash equivalent" funds might be losing your money through inflation. They should not be a majority part of your portfolio unless you don't expect to live that long.
...See More
fandlil
15 years ago
With ETFs -- exchange-traded funds -- you have the same advantages as traditional index mutual funds, plus you can trade them just like stocks, which gives you flexibility. But there is a downside: with ETFs, you have to pay commissions to a broker with each transation. That goes against the grain because one of your main objectives in your investment strategy should be to keep costs at an absolute minimum. And traditional index mutual funds do that for you.

There is, however, one instance where it might make sense to go with ETFs. Suppose you have followed the index mutual fund idea with most of your nest egg, but you still want to put a small percentage in something else, something that's not a broadly based fund. For example, gold mining stocks, as a hedge against inflation; or an ETF that invests in a particular industry like energy stocks, or pharmaceuticals, or a fund of Real Estate Investment Trusts. There are good reasons for putting some money into any one or a combination of these, as long as it is just a small percent of your total. You can still invest in these things using traditional managed mutual funds, and some of them are pretty good. But these specialized funds tend to be a bit more volatile that the broadly based index funds that make up the bulk of your nest egg. For that reason, you might want to use the ETF route for these holdings so you can get in and out more quickly than you can with traditional mutual funds.
kframe19
15 years ago
I second Vanguard being a very good company.

I have my primary 401K and some supplemental personal investments with them and have been very happy with the returns over the years.
dreamgarden
15 years ago
Food for thought regarding Vanguard.

Bloomberg.com-Worldwide

Vanguard Managers Invested in Illegal Web Gambling, Suit Says
By Andrew Harris

Aug. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Executives at The Vanguard Group, the second-biggest U.S. manager of stock and bond mutual funds, illegally invested client assets in companies running Internet gambling businesses banned in the U.S., according to a lawsuit.

In a complaint filed today in U.S. District Court in New York, investors in two different Vanguard-managed funds claim the firm's chief investment officer, George Sauter, portfolio manager Duane Kelly and eight trustees violated U.S. racketeering laws and breached their fiduciary duties to investors by acquiring stock in the Web-based businesses.

``Defendants caused the funds to become owners of illegal gambling businesses,'' according to the complaint. The plaintiffs seek class-action, or group, status on behalf of all similarly situated investors, plus unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

Vanguard, based in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, has more than $1.25 trillion in assets. The company itself is only a nominal defendant in the suit that plaintiff investors Deanna McBrearty and Marilyn Hartsel styled as an action brought on the company's behalf.

Rebecca Cohen, a Vanguard spokeswoman, said the company hasn't been served with the complaint and declined to comment.

The case is McBrearty v. The Vanguard Group, 08cv7650, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Harris at the federal court in Chicago at aharris16@bloomberg.net.

A link that might be useful:
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aTnoX.S3B8MQ&refer=home
alphacat
15 years ago
This suit sounds odd to me. Look at the link cited below, and you will see that at least one of the funds named is the Vanguard European Index Fund.

The holdings of that fund, in turn, are dictated by the Morgan Stanley Europe Index, which Vanguard does not control.

So if there is a suit claiming that it's illegal to follow that index, shouldn't Morgan Stanley be the defendant?

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to find that this is one of those nuisance lawsuits that is constantly plaguing every large company.

Here is a link that might be useful: More information
fandlil
15 years ago
I am really surprised that Vanguard people would be involved in something like illegal gambling enterprises. It is so out of keeping with the company's investment philosophy. I guess greed has no bounds. Let's see how this plays out.
scivi92
12 years ago
For reference, the above mentioned case was dismissed

Here is a link that might be useful: http://www.delawarebusinesslitigation.com/uploads/file/hartsel.pdf
jakkom
12 years ago
scivi92, thanks for posting a follow-up. That's always helpful!

Sign Up to Comment

Related Stories

KITCHEN DESIGN How to Find the Right Range for Your Kitchen

By KitchenLab Interiors

Range style is mostly a matter of personal taste. This full course of possibilities can help you find the right appliance to match yours

HOLIDAYS Christmas Cleanup Tips for the Not Naturally Organized

By Alison Hodgson

Dreading the postholiday chores? First let yourself unwind. Then grab some boxes, a few supplies and this easy guide

BUDGET DECORATING 8 Cost-Effective Ways to Get a High-End Look

By Toronto Interior Design Group

Don’t discount that expensive material yet. By using a small amount in a strategic way, you can get a luxurious look without the expense

HOME TECH Pro-Quality Manufacturing at Home? There's an App for That

Take your home workshop into the future of design with 3D printers and app-driven tools

GREEN BUILDING Going Solar at Home: Solar Panel Basics

By Christine Tusher

Save money on electricity and reduce your carbon footprint by installing photovoltaic panels. This guide will help you get started

BUDGET DECORATING 14 Ways to Make More Money at a Yard Sale — and Have Fun Too

By Laura Gaskill

Maximize profits and have a ball selling your old stuff, with these tips to help you plan, advertise and style your yard sale effectively

KITCHEN DESIGN Kitchen of the Week: Practical, Budget-Friendly Beauty in Dallas

By Vanessa Brunner

One month and a $25,000 budget — see how a Texas homeowner modernized her kitchen beautifully working with those remodeling constraints

GREEN BUILDING What's LEED All About, Anyway?

By Mariana Pickering (Emu Building Science)

If you're looking for a sustainable, energy-efficient home, look into LEED certification. Learn about the program and its rating system here

GREAT HOME PROJECTS Upgrade Your Windows for Beauty, Comfort and Big Energy Savings

By Mitchell Parker

Bid drafts or stuffiness farewell and say hello to lower utility bills with new, energy-efficient windows

WINDOW TREATMENTS 6 Ways to Deal With a Bad View Out the Window

You can come out from behind the closed curtains now. These strategies let in the light while blocking the ugly

Sponsored

Structural Remodeling

Franklin County's Heavy Timber Specialists | Best of Houzz 2020!

More Discussions

Question about c.d.'s

1