3 ms·

So New York pensioners would have saved $1.8 billion?

• zaroth 12y ago
  No, they would have earned a lower overall return, net of fees. That's the point of the rebuttal article, the original NYTimes piece was a hatchet job.
  • dd36 12y ago
    The article says 0.20% fees. This here says 0.02%. The article is based entirely on an assumption 10x higher than Vanguard's institutional fees. He declares it cheap relative to mutual funds, which is an absurd comparison. The lower bound of his fee comparison is 8 basis points, which is 4x higher.
    • _broody 12y ago
      Yes. The math in the article bothered me greatly. It seems that to the author, two fees will be "nearly the same" if they are within an order of magnitude of each other, which is ridiculous. Not to mention the condescension dripping from every word. This piece is a good example of how not to write an 'informative' rebuttal.