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.
The seeming 'reasoned' approach laid out in the memo, ignores, in my opinion, a very important factor: PRICE.
Vanguard, which admirably delivers a low-price (i.e. low-expense) suite of products, apparently feels that the price an investor pays (or holds) investments is not something to be discussed when weighing allocation decisions.
I think I understand why they ignore/downplay asset prices --- as it would disrupt their buy/hold (i.e. accumulate AUM) business model. I guess I just disagree that asset-class prices levels is an insignificant detail....
@Edmund - Agree this sounds like it was written for a novice investor - maybe even a 10-year old. If they're simply trying to encourage folks to stay invested rather than pulling everything out of their IRAs - than I get it. I guess.
Hopefully this blurb isn't typical of what Vanguard cranks out for its loyal core of investors. T.Rowe Price, where I'm more familiar, puts out some excellent market analysis from time-to-time. Ignore them at your own peril (as I've learned the hard way).
Comments
Vanguard, which admirably delivers a low-price (i.e. low-expense) suite of products, apparently feels that the price an investor pays (or holds) investments is not something to be discussed when weighing allocation decisions.
I think I understand why they ignore/downplay asset prices --- as it would disrupt their buy/hold (i.e. accumulate AUM) business model. I guess I just disagree that asset-class prices levels is an insignificant detail....
Hopefully this blurb isn't typical of what Vanguard cranks out for its loyal core of investors. T.Rowe Price, where I'm more familiar, puts out some excellent market analysis from time-to-time. Ignore them at your own peril (as I've learned the hard way).