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.
NOBL looks great. I like the fact that it is a compact portfolio, and I like the fact that it is equal-weighted. Also I can live with the .35% management fee.
In the same vein is the open end fund VDAIX, where the index requires only 10 years of consecutive dividend increases vs. 25 years for NOBL. Management fee is .20% and it holds a cap-weighted gaggle of 181 names.
I would not consider QVAL. I am unfamiliar with the quantitative screens it uses, although I have little doubt that they have all back-tested very well. To me, these somewhat esoteric screens add uncertainty and violate the KISS principle. Further, it is billed as an actively managed etf which not only gives humans a chance to mess it up, but which costs .79% annually. My guess is that over time it will lag the others mentioned here for that reason alone.
I feel that chances are all of these mentioned will do fine. The phrase "6 of one half-dozen of the other" comes to mind, but for a certain type of weirdo (present!) it is fun and interesting to split the hairs. Thanks for pointing out NOBL, scott.
Right. VIG is fine. Just depends which vehicle one likes better.
As for the fee of .20% vs. .10%, from what I understand, the existence of "front running" by traders adds a hidden but very real cost to any index etf -- a cost of maybe .2% or more per annum. So truly, the old fashioned open end fund -- at .20% -- may be cheaper.
However, the actual results over the past 5 years show an annualized advantage to VIG of right around .1% exactly -- hmmmm.
In that space I would do 50-50 RPV and RPG and hopefully slightly outperform all of the above. Even more than RSP, weirdly. Check out past performance. Not responsive to your OP, admittedly. Like SCHD too.
Comments
In the same vein is the open end fund VDAIX, where the index requires only 10 years of consecutive dividend increases vs. 25 years for NOBL. Management fee is .20% and it holds a cap-weighted gaggle of 181 names.
I would not consider QVAL. I am unfamiliar with the quantitative screens it uses, although I have little doubt that they have all back-tested very well. To me, these somewhat esoteric screens add uncertainty and violate the KISS principle. Further, it is billed as an actively managed etf which not only gives humans a chance to mess it up, but which costs .79% annually. My guess is that over time it will lag the others mentioned here for that reason alone.
I feel that chances are all of these mentioned will do fine. The phrase "6 of one half-dozen of the other" comes to mind, but for a certain type of weirdo (present!) it is fun and interesting to split the hairs. Thanks for pointing out NOBL, scott.
As for the fee of .20% vs. .10%, from what I understand, the existence of "front running" by traders adds a hidden but very real cost to any index etf -- a cost of maybe .2% or more per annum. So truly, the old fashioned open end fund -- at .20% -- may be cheaper.
However, the actual results over the past 5 years show an annualized advantage to VIG of right around .1% exactly -- hmmmm.
another good alternative: SCHD.