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.
By the way, one of Vanguard ETF, emerging market index, VWO, has overtaken iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index Fund. EEM, in both the asset held and daily trading volume.
Schwab sets its prices based on marketing, Vanguard on costs - so you know which one is sustainable. (Not to mention the quality of VG's management group.)
In any case, Vanguard's latest drop in expense ratios demonstrates this. (Including ER increases - when costs rise, as for its VA conservative allocation fund, the ER is raised commensurately.)
Schwab's ETF expenses (showing old VG costs), Vanguard's reduced expenses
But Don't Forget "Yield Plus" -----------------------
Perhaps everyone deserves a second chance. But in evaluating a company, one can't also ignore their historical performance, record ... or SEC settlements.
In the case of Schwab, they were - as noted in the link below - the subject of "government allegations that it misled investors about the risks of the portfolio's mortgage-related holdings" in their Yield Plus Bond Fund. According to the LA Times, investors in the Schwab bond fund lost millions.
Funny you should mention this sort of stuff. I've just been filing claim papers for a class settlement with Fidelity for its Ultra Short Bond Fund (FUSFX).
Schwab's violations were I believe on the outer fringe. The article doesn't say this directly, but I believe Schwab violated its prospectus in how heavily it weighted MBSs. Fidelity didn't come close to the bad performance or AFAIK blatent violations, but I'll take a few cents on each dollar's loss - still better than nothing.
Comments
By the way, one of Vanguard ETF, emerging market index, VWO, has overtaken iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index Fund. EEM, in both the asset held and daily trading volume.
In any case, Vanguard's latest drop in expense ratios demonstrates this. (Including ER increases - when costs rise, as for its VA conservative allocation fund, the ER is raised commensurately.)
Schwab's ETF expenses (showing old VG costs), Vanguard's reduced expenses
-----------------------
Perhaps everyone deserves a second chance. But in evaluating a company, one can't also ignore their historical performance, record ... or SEC settlements.
In the case of Schwab, they were - as noted in the link below - the subject of "government allegations that it misled investors about the risks of the portfolio's mortgage-related holdings" in their Yield Plus Bond Fund. According to the LA Times, investors in the Schwab bond fund lost millions.
See link below for one paper's account.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/12/business/la-fi-schwab-sec-20110112
Schwab's violations were I believe on the outer fringe. The article doesn't say this directly, but I believe Schwab violated its prospectus in how heavily it weighted MBSs. Fidelity didn't come close to the bad performance or AFAIK blatent violations, but I'll take a few cents on each dollar's loss - still better than nothing.