3 ms·
That was almost 15 years ago, so I'd have to do some digging to name names. On the whole, perhaps things have gotten better since then. It is still a thing th
by jstewartmobile 9y ago
That was almost 15 years ago, so I'd have to do some digging to name names. On the whole, perhaps things have gotten better since then.
It is still a thing though. Father-in-law had most of his stuff at Edward Jones. Some of their fees put mine to shame:
https://www.edwardjones.com/planfees/fees-compensation/mutual-fund-fees.html https://www.edwardjones.com/planfees/fees-compensation/mutua...
edit: Most of his had different titles, but their largest holdings were the same handful of stocks. We overlaid the S&P 500 on top of most of them--practically identical performance from time of inception!
- hkmurakami 9y agothose pdfs give basically no inforamation at all. I certainly hope that the equity funds are actively managed (rather than passively managed, though tbh actively managed funds that are provided in a 401k plan are going to be crap about 95%+ of the time) if they are charging 1%+ in fees.
- richardwhiuk 9y agoactively managed funds mostly don't outperform the S&P 500 anyway, so not sure why you'd want an actively managed fund anyway
- pinewurst 9y agoEdward Jones is exceptionally bad. I remember a few years ago, articles about them directing investments preferentially into funds they were rewarded on. I see as many of their branches as convenience stores and wonder why so many people would give them their savings?