37 ms·

Yes, we would all be richer if everything was free, financial services included. If Vanguard can provide cheaper options, so be it, but in that case, they shoul

Yes, we would all be richer if everything was free, financial services included. If Vanguard can provide cheaper options, so be it, but in that case, they shouldn't need fallacious claims feeding on the public's current hatred of the financial industry to sell them.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
I'm not sure who's arguing it should be free. Straw man? In any event, there's nothing fallacious about pointing out the impact of those absurdly high fees on retirement savings over time. The money doesn't just evaporate from savings. It is specifically lost to those fees. It's actually your argument regarding how the money might be used by Wall Street, etc., that is fallacious. It's a red herring. And, of course they should feed on the public's hatred of the financial industry. People don't hate the financial industry because it consists of evil gnomes who steal their peanut butter while they sleep. They hate the industry because it attempts to financially rape them at every turn. So, that hatred is relevant here. Good old free market competition. >but I can tell you right now, there are a lot of days I wish I just accepted whatever return I could get from someone else willing to manage my investments for me and focus on other things. If you think it's worth it to pay these fees, then so be it, but no need to use fallacious arguments to veil their impact.
- conjecTech 13y ago
  >If you think it's worth it to pay these fees, then so be it, but no need to use fallacious arguments to veil their impact. You've yet to really address any of my original statements. I never claimed that paying someone a percentage of your returns as a management fee means you receive less. I fundamentally disagreed with Vanguard insinuating that Wall Street received the equivalent of 2/3s of your potential portfolio value, which indeed is not the case. I don't know what fallacious arguments you are talking about.

unclebucknasty 13y ago

I'm not sure who's arguing it should be free. Straw man? In any event, there's nothing fallacious about pointing out the impact of those absurdly high fees on retirement savings over time. The money doesn't just evaporate from savings. It is specifically lost to those fees. It's actually your argument regarding how the money might be used by Wall Street, etc., that is fallacious. It's a red herring. And, of course they should feed on the public's hatred of the financial industry. People don't hate the financial industry because it consists of evil gnomes who steal their peanut butter while they sleep. They hate the industry because it attempts to financially rape them at every turn. So, that hatred is relevant here. Good old free market competition. >but I can tell you right now, there are a lot of days I wish I just accepted whatever return I could get from someone else willing to manage my investments for me and focus on other things. If you think it's worth it to pay these fees, then so be it, but no need to use fallacious arguments to veil their impact.

conjecTech 13y ago
>If you think it's worth it to pay these fees, then so be it, but no need to use fallacious arguments to veil their impact. You've yet to really address any of my original statements. I never claimed that paying someone a percentage of your returns as a management fee means you receive less. I fundamentally disagreed with Vanguard insinuating that Wall Street received the equivalent of 2/3s of your potential portfolio value, which indeed is not the case. I don't know what fallacious arguments you are talking about.