Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Vanguard Readies ‘Ultra-Short-Term’ Bond Mutual Fund
"Vanguard will launch with two share classes: the “Investor” class (VUSFX) will sport of ratio of 0.2% and an initial investment of $3,000; Vanguard’s “Admiral” share class (VUSFX) will carry a 0.12% expense ratio and a minimum investment of $50,000." -
Interesting. Price came out with same concept two-three years ago. I own TRBUX and was surprised to see tonight that its ER Is only .35%. Vanguard wins on cost - but not by much.
Minimums appear similar. At Price it's $2500 for a regular account and $1,000 for an IRA.
I realize folks won't be pounding a path in the ground racing to get into these things at current rates. Currently, TRBUX yields only slightly more than a money market fund - or effectively nothing.
Fidelity has had this one, FCONX since March of 2011 (when interest rates were going to increase ); but it is too expensive at .40 ER, which wipes out the yield currently at, .20%, 30 day SEC yield. Negative cash flow like some of the central banks, eh?
Is there that much benefit on holding these funds once you account for the ER over a money market fund? As mentioned already, the expense ratio eats up any interest/gains.
TRBUX actually returned .51% to investors over the past year. The .35% ER is the result of a fee waiver. Otherwise, it would be .49%
Since the one year "yield" is posted as .66%, I'm not sure how they managed to return that .51% after expenses. Magic? Or perhaps a bit of capital appreciation.
By contrast, their Prime Reserve money market fund returned only .01% to investors over the past year,
I see two reasons for these funds coming out at this time.
First, they may forsee a rising rate environment (which Catch alludes to) in which even short-term bond funds will experience the size losses that conservative investors won't want to bear. Such an environment is, of course, alien to anyone under the age of 40 or 45.
Second, they want to gain experience running what is essentially a floating NAV money market fund, as the SEC has been pushing them to move in this direction with their traditional money market funds.
IMHO...As rates adjust (when this happens is the key) these funds will not provide adequate downside protection. Instead, hold a good multi-sector bond fund and focus on other opportunities as they arise.
Comments
-
Interesting. Price came out with same concept two-three years ago. I own TRBUX and was surprised to see tonight that its ER Is only .35%. Vanguard wins on cost - but not by much.
Minimums appear similar. At Price it's $2500 for a regular account and $1,000 for an IRA.
I realize folks won't be pounding a path in the ground racing to get into these things at current rates. Currently, TRBUX yields only slightly more than a money market fund - or effectively nothing.
Negative cash flow like some of the central banks, eh?
Fido fund view link
TRBUX actually returned .51% to investors over the past year.
The .35% ER is the result of a fee waiver. Otherwise, it would be .49%
Since the one year "yield" is posted as .66%, I'm not sure how they managed to return that .51% after expenses. Magic? Or perhaps a bit of capital appreciation.
By contrast, their Prime Reserve money market fund returned only .01% to investors over the past year,
I see two reasons for these funds coming out at this time.
First, they may forsee a rising rate environment (which Catch alludes to) in which even short-term bond funds will experience the size losses that conservative investors won't want to bear. Such an environment is, of course, alien to anyone under the age of 40 or 45.
Second, they want to gain experience running what is essentially a floating NAV money market fund, as the SEC has been pushing them to move in this direction with their traditional money market funds.