Sentences with phrase «even as expense ratios»

Not exact matches

As we saw above, even a seemingly small difference in the expense ratio between funds can add up to a HUGE difference over time.

Then, i will drive my new car until it no longer runs while putting all of my income (other than my house payments and basic food / budgeted expenses) into long term undervalued stocks with low P / E ratios and growth potential, and most importantly not ever taking that money out of the market — even after market declines, and making sure to match the maximum that my employer contributes into my roth IRA (as that is free money I would be a fool to pass up).

Even though those Morningstar indices are not as widely used as other indices, Scottrade and its subsidiary FocusShares are able to offer these funds at extremely low expense ratios (ERs), even lower than Vanguard fuEven though those Morningstar indices are not as widely used as other indices, Scottrade and its subsidiary FocusShares are able to offer these funds at extremely low expense ratios (ERs), even lower than Vanguard fueven lower than Vanguard funds.

It does mean that I think it will be exceedingly difficult for TAVF to do as well in the next three years as in the last three, even though the Fund is operating with a manifestly lower expense ratio now, compared with that which existed when TAVF was much smaller.

But if we increase their annual return by a full percentage point each year, which is essentially the same thing as getting them to a 0.4 % expense ratio, their prospects get even better.

As for people in the comments that point out you don't like mutual funds (I assume especially mutual funds with loads and / or high expense ratios)-- to that I say, as long as your employer is matching contributions (let's say 1:1) you start out with a 100 % gain on your money so even a miserable fund that only returns enough to cover fees — you still DOUBLE YOUR MONEAs for people in the comments that point out you don't like mutual funds (I assume especially mutual funds with loads and / or high expense ratios)-- to that I say, as long as your employer is matching contributions (let's say 1:1) you start out with a 100 % gain on your money so even a miserable fund that only returns enough to cover fees — you still DOUBLE YOUR MONEas long as your employer is matching contributions (let's say 1:1) you start out with a 100 % gain on your money so even a miserable fund that only returns enough to cover fees — you still DOUBLE YOUR MONEas your employer is matching contributions (let's say 1:1) you start out with a 100 % gain on your money so even a miserable fund that only returns enough to cover fees — you still DOUBLE YOUR MONEY.

Plus, when you stop to consider that there are index ETFs out there with expense ratios as low as 0.04 %, the opportunity cost of paying fees in actively managed funds is even greater — especially when it appears that index funds are a better deal for most consumers.

Others can mirror their index funds and even match the expense ratios, but the customer - as - shareholder ownership structure of Vanguard ensures they will always be genuine, cost - efficient custodians of your money.

Companies, even now, consider the business in loss as combined ratio of expenses and other overheads will be more than 105 %.