3 ms·

ETFs are generally cheaper to own in terms of their expense ratios, something like <=1% vs 1% – 3% for mutual finds. It‘s easier to get into and out of ETFs; T

ETFs are generally cheaper to own in terms of their expense ratios, something like <=1% vs 1% – 3% for mutual finds. It‘s easier to get into and out of ETFs; They trade all day just as a stock does. Mutual funds you enter into at the market‘s close at a price set at that time. Also, ETFs are bit more transparent as to their capital gains taxes costs. Less surprises when you liquidate.

soVeryTired 10y ago
Even 1% is a very high total expense ratio.
Steuard 10y ago
Yikes! Are there really index funds with 1% expense ratios? I think my Vanguard funds are all under 0.2%, some way under. (I've got the impression that Vanguard's ETF expense ratios are similar or identical to the corresponding fund expense ratios.) Thanks for the overview. I'd heard about the constant trading difference before (I've tended not to think about it, since I'm a buy-and-hold-for-years type). Do you have a sense of how much cost winds up being associated with broker commissions and/or the buy-ask spread? I hadn't been aware of the simpler capital gains situation (thus far, I've just blindly copied down whatever's summarized on the year-end tax statement they provide onto my IRS forms).
- plandis 10y ago
  Vanguards ETF expense ratios seem to be slightly lower than/on par with the admiral type funds from my experience.
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    Vanguard ETF expense ratios are almost always^* exactly equal to the corresponding admiral type funds. The reason is because Vanguard holds a patent on the dual-share class[1] idea, where the ETF and admiral share mutual fund are precisely the same fund. *: The exceptions tend to be new-ish funds which are less liquid and have purchase costs on the mutual fund side. I haven't seen more than one or two of these recently. [1]: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e0cc962-ec0c-11e4-b428-00144feab7de.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e0cc962-ec0c-11e4-b428-00144feab7...

soVeryTired 10y ago

Even 1% is a very high total expense ratio.

Steuard 10y ago

Yikes! Are there really index funds with 1% expense ratios? I think my Vanguard funds are all under 0.2%, some way under. (I've got the impression that Vanguard's ETF expense ratios are similar or identical to the corresponding fund expense ratios.) Thanks for the overview. I'd heard about the constant trading difference before (I've tended not to think about it, since I'm a buy-and-hold-for-years type). Do you have a sense of how much cost winds up being associated with broker commissions and/or the buy-ask spread? I hadn't been aware of the simpler capital gains situation (thus far, I've just blindly copied down whatever's summarized on the year-end tax statement they provide onto my IRS forms).

plandis 10y ago
Vanguards ETF expense ratios seem to be slightly lower than/on par with the admiral type funds from my experience.
- tanderson92 10y ago
  Vanguard ETF expense ratios are almost always^* exactly equal to the corresponding admiral type funds. The reason is because Vanguard holds a patent on the dual-share class[1] idea, where the ETF and admiral share mutual fund are precisely the same fund. *: The exceptions tend to be new-ish funds which are less liquid and have purchase costs on the mutual fund side. I haven't seen more than one or two of these recently. [1]: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e0cc962-ec0c-11e4-b428-00144feab7de.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e0cc962-ec0c-11e4-b428-00144feab7...