1% fee for investment management?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get it out of there. I would definitely not send more money to this company because they are taking advantage of you.

Vanguard if you want to deal with figuring how where to invest. Betterment if you'd prefer a robot do that work for you for a slightly higher fee. Neither will be anywhere near 1%, which is insane for the level of service you are (not) getting.

NP and I would add that Vanguard's average active fund expense ratio is 0.20%.

VTSAX and some other index funds @ 0.04%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends. First, 1% is pretty standard rate which can be worth it. For me, the benefits are 1) it gets me access to less expensive institutional shares of stocks (e.g. instead of paying fee of 0.30% to Vanguard say it's 0.08%. 2) Access to shares of Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) or other funds that you need an advisor for 3) advice on a variety of financial topics 4) no need to spend the time rebalancing or managing the account. So I would ask for the 1% fee, how much of what I listed do you "get" and do they combined make up for the 1% fee. If they don't give you benefits, then I agree a low cost Vanguard or Schwab is probably better.

This doesn't make sense. Why pay someone 1%, so you can save 0.22% on the expense ratio. Also vanguard and Fidelity have very low expense ratio products these days, but you would need more than $8,000 to invest in them. Vanguard calls them admiral, not sure what Fidelity calls them.

In any event, I'd roll over your account just to consolidate accounts. Having $8,000 in an orphan account where you won't add more money to it seems like a waste.

DP.. certain types of accounts have more flexibility in terms of what types of stocks, funds can be purchased. The cheaper ones don't have access to some of the more aggressive funds. I just reviewed all this with my investment manager who doesn't make any commission. He is salary based.

I don't understand. Vanguard has hundreds of funds, from low risk/low return to high risk/high return. Can you give an example?

I can't give you an actual example since I don't have access to vanguard, but here's an article that states how Vanguard is not for the aggressive investor. Like I stated, Vanguard is cheap in part because they are not actively managed.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/etfs-mutual-funds/062716/fidelity-vs-vanguard-which-better-suited-you.asp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends. First, 1% is pretty standard rate which can be worth it. For me, the benefits are 1) it gets me access to less expensive institutional shares of stocks (e.g. instead of paying fee of 0.30% to Vanguard say it's 0.08%. 2) Access to shares of Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) or other funds that you need an advisor for 3) advice on a variety of financial topics 4) no need to spend the time rebalancing or managing the account. So I would ask for the 1% fee, how much of what I listed do you "get" and do they combined make up for the 1% fee. If they don't give you benefits, then I agree a low cost Vanguard or Schwab is probably better.

This doesn't make sense. Why pay someone 1%, so you can save 0.22% on the expense ratio. Also vanguard and Fidelity have very low expense ratio products these days, but you would need more than $8,000 to invest in them. Vanguard calls them admiral, not sure what Fidelity calls them.

In any event, I'd roll over your account just to consolidate accounts. Having $8,000 in an orphan account where you won't add more money to it seems like a waste.

DP.. certain types of accounts have more flexibility in terms of what types of stocks, funds can be purchased. The cheaper ones don't have access to some of the more aggressive funds. I just reviewed all this with my investment manager who doesn't make any commission. He is salary based.

I don't understand. Vanguard has hundreds of funds, from low risk/low return to high risk/high return. Can you give an example?

I can't give you an actual example since I don't have access to vanguard, but here's an article that states how Vanguard is not for the aggressive investor. Like I stated, Vanguard is cheap in part because they are not actively managed.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/etfs-mutual-funds/062716/fidelity-vs-vanguard-which-better-suited-you.asp

Yes, I've seen this article before but not sure if I totally agree with it. I have both - Vanguard and Fidelity - and many of their funds are very close w/ basically same fee structure. I have some very aggressive funds with Vanguard (i.e., high risk funds than my Fidelity funds)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get it out of there. I would definitely not send more money to this company because they are taking advantage of you.

Vanguard if you want to deal with figuring how where to invest. Betterment if you'd prefer a robot do that work for you for a slightly higher fee. Neither will be anywhere near 1%, which is insane for the level of service you are (not) getting.

NP and I would add that Vanguard's average active fund expense ratio is 0.20%.

VTSAX and some other index funds @ 0.04%

Right but OP is suggesting he/she receives value from an actively managed fund. I'm just pointing out that if OP wants an actively managed fund it can be obtained for significantly cheaper at Vanguard. Agree with you OP will save even more if they simply handle their own investments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get it out of there. I would definitely not send more money to this company because they are taking advantage of you.

Vanguard if you want to deal with figuring how where to invest. Betterment if you'd prefer a robot do that work for you for a slightly higher fee. Neither will be anywhere near 1%, which is insane for the level of service you are (not) getting.

NP and I would add that Vanguard's average active fund expense ratio is 0.20%.

VTSAX and some other index funds @ 0.04%

Right but OP is suggesting he/she receives value from an actively managed fund. I'm just pointing out that if OP wants an actively managed fund it can be obtained for significantly cheaper at Vanguard. Agree with you OP will save even more if they simply handle their own investments.

The OP says literally nothing about getting any value, aside from not having had to think about this before.

My recommendation to the OP: if you value not having to think about it - move everything to Betterment or Wealthfront. A small premium on top of the Vanguard rates to continue not having to think about it. Vastly lower than 1%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends. First, 1% is pretty standard rate which can be worth it. For me, the benefits are 1) it gets me access to less expensive institutional shares of stocks (e.g. instead of paying fee of 0.30% to Vanguard say it's 0.08%. 2) Access to shares of Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) or other funds that you need an advisor for 3) advice on a variety of financial topics 4) no need to spend the time rebalancing or managing the account. So I would ask for the 1% fee, how much of what I listed do you "get" and do they combined make up for the 1% fee. If they don't give you benefits, then I agree a low cost Vanguard or Schwab is probably better.

This doesn't make sense. Why pay someone 1%, so you can save 0.22% on the expense ratio. Also vanguard and Fidelity have very low expense ratio products these days, but you would need more than $8,000 to invest in them. Vanguard calls them admiral, not sure what Fidelity calls them.

In any event, I'd roll over your account just to consolidate accounts. Having $8,000 in an orphan account where you won't add more money to it seems like a waste.

DP.. certain types of accounts have more flexibility in terms of what types of stocks, funds can be purchased. The cheaper ones don't have access to some of the more aggressive funds. I just reviewed all this with my investment manager who doesn't make any commission. He is salary based.

I don't understand. Vanguard has hundreds of funds, from low risk/low return to high risk/high return. Can you give an example?

I can't give you an actual example since I don't have access to vanguard, but here's an article that states how Vanguard is not for the aggressive investor. Like I stated, Vanguard is cheap in part because they are not actively managed.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/etfs-mutual-funds/062716/fidelity-vs-vanguard-which-better-suited-you.asp

Yes, I've seen this article before but not sure if I totally agree with it. I have both - Vanguard and Fidelity - and many of their funds are very close w/ basically same fee structure. I have some very aggressive funds with Vanguard (i.e., high risk funds than my Fidelity funds)

I don't have Fidelity, but other investment firms are more aggressive and actively manage portfolios. That's what you are paying them for. Vanguard and the like are cheap because there is no one really managing that portfolio.

[Anonymous]

Active funds do not historically outperform index funds. Set it and forget it is the way to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends. First, 1% is pretty standard rate which can be worth it. For me, the benefits are 1) it gets me access to less expensive institutional shares of stocks (e.g. instead of paying fee of 0.30% to Vanguard say it's 0.08%. 2) Access to shares of Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) or other funds that you need an advisor for 3) advice on a variety of financial topics 4) no need to spend the time rebalancing or managing the account. So I would ask for the 1% fee, how much of what I listed do you "get" and do they combined make up for the 1% fee. If they don't give you benefits, then I agree a low cost Vanguard or Schwab is probably better.

This doesn't make sense. Why pay someone 1%, so you can save 0.22% on the expense ratio. Also vanguard and Fidelity have very low expense ratio products these days, but you would need more than $8,000 to invest in them. Vanguard calls them admiral, not sure what Fidelity calls them.

In any event, I'd roll over your account just to consolidate accounts. Having $8,000 in an orphan account where you won't add more money to it seems like a waste.

DP.. certain types of accounts have more flexibility in terms of what types of stocks, funds can be purchased. The cheaper ones don't have access to some of the more aggressive funds. I just reviewed all this with my investment manager who doesn't make any commission. He is salary based.

I don't understand. Vanguard has hundreds of funds, from low risk/low return to high risk/high return. Can you give an example?

I can't give you an actual example since I don't have access to vanguard, but here's an article that states how Vanguard is not for the aggressive investor. Like I stated, Vanguard is cheap in part because they are not actively managed.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/etfs-mutual-funds/062716/fidelity-vs-vanguard-which-better-suited-you.asp

Yes, I've seen this article before but not sure if I totally agree with it. I have both - Vanguard and Fidelity - and many of their funds are very close w/ basically same fee structure. I have some very aggressive funds with Vanguard (i.e., high risk funds than my Fidelity funds)

I don't have Fidelity, but other investment firms are more aggressive and actively manage portfolios. That's what you are paying them for. Vanguard and the like are cheap because there is no one really managing that portfolio.

Maybe your fund manager's worth $ but only 1 in 5 manager can beat index fund returns. Maybe they are more useful in a bear market

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends. First, 1% is pretty standard rate which can be worth it. For me, the benefits are 1) it gets me access to less expensive institutional shares of stocks (e.g. instead of paying fee of 0.30% to Vanguard say it's 0.08%. 2) Access to shares of Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) or other funds that you need an advisor for 3) advice on a variety of financial topics 4) no need to spend the time rebalancing or managing the account. So I would ask for the 1% fee, how much of what I listed do you "get" and do they combined make up for the 1% fee. If they don't give you benefits, then I agree a low cost Vanguard or Schwab is probably better.

This doesn't make sense. Why pay someone 1%, so you can save 0.22% on the expense ratio. Also vanguard and Fidelity have very low expense ratio products these days, but you would need more than $8,000 to invest in them. Vanguard calls them admiral, not sure what Fidelity calls them.

In any event, I'd roll over your account just to consolidate accounts. Having $8,000 in an orphan account where you won't add more money to it seems like a waste.

DP.. certain types of accounts have more flexibility in terms of what types of stocks, funds can be purchased. The cheaper ones don't have access to some of the more aggressive funds. I just reviewed all this with my investment manager who doesn't make any commission. He is salary based.

I don't understand. Vanguard has hundreds of funds, from low risk/low return to high risk/high return. Can you give an example?

I can't give you an actual example since I don't have access to vanguard, but here's an article that states how Vanguard is not for the aggressive investor. Like I stated, Vanguard is cheap in part because they are not actively managed.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/etfs-mutual-funds/062716/fidelity-vs-vanguard-which-better-suited-you.asp

Yes, I've seen this article before but not sure if I totally agree with it. I have both - Vanguard and Fidelity - and many of their funds are very close w/ basically same fee structure. I have some very aggressive funds with Vanguard (i.e., high risk funds than my Fidelity funds)

I don't have Fidelity, but other investment firms are more aggressive and actively manage portfolios. That's what you are paying them for. Vanguard and the like are cheap because there is no one really managing that portfolio.

Maybe your fund manager's worth $ but only 1 in 5 manager can beat index fund returns. Maybe they are more useful in a bear market

Active managers also rebalance more frequently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends. First, 1% is pretty standard rate which can be worth it. For me, the benefits are 1) it gets me access to less expensive institutional shares of stocks (e.g. instead of paying fee of 0.30% to Vanguard say it's 0.08%. 2) Access to shares of Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) or other funds that you need an advisor for 3) advice on a variety of financial topics 4) no need to spend the time rebalancing or managing the account. So I would ask for the 1% fee, how much of what I listed do you "get" and do they combined make up for the 1% fee. If they don't give you benefits, then I agree a low cost Vanguard or Schwab is probably better.

This doesn't make sense. Why pay someone 1%, so you can save 0.22% on the expense ratio. Also vanguard and Fidelity have very low expense ratio products these days, but you would need more than $8,000 to invest in them. Vanguard calls them admiral, not sure what Fidelity calls them.

In any event, I'd roll over your account just to consolidate accounts. Having $8,000 in an orphan account where you won't add more money to it seems like a waste.

DP.. certain types of accounts have more flexibility in terms of what types of stocks, funds can be purchased. The cheaper ones don't have access to some of the more aggressive funds. I just reviewed all this with my investment manager who doesn't make any commission. He is salary based.

I don't understand. Vanguard has hundreds of funds, from low risk/low return to high risk/high return. Can you give an example?

I can't give you an actual example since I don't have access to vanguard, but here's an article that states how Vanguard is not for the aggressive investor. Like I stated, Vanguard is cheap in part because they are not actively managed.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/etfs-mutual-funds/062716/fidelity-vs-vanguard-which-better-suited-you.asp

Yes, I've seen this article before but not sure if I totally agree with it. I have both - Vanguard and Fidelity - and many of their funds are very close w/ basically same fee structure. I have some very aggressive funds with Vanguard (i.e., high risk funds than my Fidelity funds)

I don't have Fidelity, but other investment firms are more aggressive and actively manage portfolios. That's what you are paying them for. Vanguard and the like are cheap because there is no one really managing that portfolio.

Maybe your fund manager's worth $ but only 1 in 5 manager can beat index fund returns. Maybe they are more useful in a bear market

Active managers also rebalance more frequently.

But that's not necessarily a good thing right? Unless they can produce HIGHER results, who cares?

[Anonymous]

Please watch Frontline’s episode titled The Retirement Gamble

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends. First, 1% is pretty standard rate which can be worth it. For me, the benefits are 1) it gets me access to less expensive institutional shares of stocks (e.g. instead of paying fee of 0.30% to Vanguard say it's 0.08%. 2) Access to shares of Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) or other funds that you need an advisor for 3) advice on a variety of financial topics 4) no need to spend the time rebalancing or managing the account. So I would ask for the 1% fee, how much of what I listed do you "get" and do they combined make up for the 1% fee. If they don't give you benefits, then I agree a low cost Vanguard or Schwab is probably better.

This doesn't make sense. Why pay someone 1%, so you can save 0.22% on the expense ratio. Also vanguard and Fidelity have very low expense ratio products these days, but you would need more than $8,000 to invest in them. Vanguard calls them admiral, not sure what Fidelity calls them.

In any event, I'd roll over your account just to consolidate accounts. Having $8,000 in an orphan account where you won't add more money to it seems like a waste.

DP.. certain types of accounts have more flexibility in terms of what types of stocks, funds can be purchased. The cheaper ones don't have access to some of the more aggressive funds. I just reviewed all this with my investment manager who doesn't make any commission. He is salary based.

I don't understand. Vanguard has hundreds of funds, from low risk/low return to high risk/high return. Can you give an example?

I can't give you an actual example since I don't have access to vanguard, but here's an article that states how Vanguard is not for the aggressive investor. Like I stated, Vanguard is cheap in part because they are not actively managed.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/etfs-mutual-funds/062716/fidelity-vs-vanguard-which-better-suited-you.asp

Yes, I've seen this article before but not sure if I totally agree with it. I have both - Vanguard and Fidelity - and many of their funds are very close w/ basically same fee structure. I have some very aggressive funds with Vanguard (i.e., high risk funds than my Fidelity funds)

I don't have Fidelity, but other investment firms are more aggressive and actively manage portfolios. That's what you are paying them for. Vanguard and the like are cheap because there is no one really managing that portfolio.

Maybe your fund manager's worth $ but only 1 in 5 manager can beat index fund returns. Maybe they are more useful in a bear market

Active managers also rebalance more frequently.

Yes, because churning your account generates even more fees for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends. First, 1% is pretty standard rate which can be worth it. For me, the benefits are 1) it gets me access to less expensive institutional shares of stocks (e.g. instead of paying fee of 0.30% to Vanguard say it's 0.08%. 2) Access to shares of Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) or other funds that you need an advisor for 3) advice on a variety of financial topics 4) no need to spend the time rebalancing or managing the account. So I would ask for the 1% fee, how much of what I listed do you "get" and do they combined make up for the 1% fee. If they don't give you benefits, then I agree a low cost Vanguard or Schwab is probably better.

This doesn't make sense. Why pay someone 1%, so you can save 0.22% on the expense ratio. Also vanguard and Fidelity have very low expense ratio products these days, but you would need more than $8,000 to invest in them. Vanguard calls them admiral, not sure what Fidelity calls them.

In any event, I'd roll over your account just to consolidate accounts. Having $8,000 in an orphan account where you won't add more money to it seems like a waste.

DP.. certain types of accounts have more flexibility in terms of what types of stocks, funds can be purchased. The cheaper ones don't have access to some of the more aggressive funds. I just reviewed all this with my investment manager who doesn't make any commission. He is salary based.

I don't understand. Vanguard has hundreds of funds, from low risk/low return to high risk/high return. Can you give an example?

I can't give you an actual example since I don't have access to vanguard, but here's an article that states how Vanguard is not for the aggressive investor. Like I stated, Vanguard is cheap in part because they are not actively managed.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/etfs-mutual-funds/062716/fidelity-vs-vanguard-which-better-suited-you.asp

Yes, I've seen this article before but not sure if I totally agree with it. I have both - Vanguard and Fidelity - and many of their funds are very close w/ basically same fee structure. I have some very aggressive funds with Vanguard (i.e., high risk funds than my Fidelity funds)

I don't have Fidelity, but other investment firms are more aggressive and actively manage portfolios. That's what you are paying them for. Vanguard and the like are cheap because there is no one really managing that portfolio.

Maybe your fund manager's worth $ but only 1 in 5 manager can beat index fund returns. Maybe they are more useful in a bear market

Active managers also rebalance more frequently.

Yes, because churning your account generates even more fees for them.

If it is a fee-based advisor, they don't get any money from trades. That would be a comission-based advisor, which is not as common anymore.


I'm not against advisors like a lot of DCUM but $8000 isn't worth paying someone. They can't make miracles happen on such a small amount.