Sentences with phrase «than index funds so»

It's worth mentioning also that some SRIs have significantly higher fees than index funds so if little out - performance is expected than the fees will eat away at the results.

Not exact matches

So if your ETF is charging even more than the average traditional mutual fund, or average index ETF, and it's not doing something wholly different from everybody else — or underperforming — think twice.

I plan: 5 % — swing for the fences 10 % — save for big blue chip bargain buys that pop up throughout the year 10 % — VNQ, other than our primary residence, I have no exposure to RE, so this should help with that 15 % — VXUS, international index exposure 60 % — VTI, total stock market index (as I get older, I will be also adding BND or a bond fund, but at 32, I'm working on building equities!)

More than just tempering Gross's anti-equity remarks, the longtime advocate of buying and holding equity - based index funds and ETFs went so far as to say that «equities today are more attractive relative to bonds than at any other time in history.»

Professionals rarely do so well over 50 years that their decisions about when to get in and out of a stock lead to better performance than they might have achieved by just putting money into an index fund that buys every stock in a particular category.

@ Sam, Asset allocation with index funds has so much research in it's favor, long term, you will be better off than most.

Given the fact that a high percentage of managed funds don't do better than index funds, especially over the long run, the chances that any individual will do so seem rather low.

The average annual return since 1980 is 10.4 %, better than the appropriate mix of benchmark indexes, so the managers of these funds have definitely added value.

So there's no speculation affecting the index fund directly (other than the speculation pertaining to its underlying stocks).

Yes, it will grow the same as the underlying fund minus the fund fees which is usually something like couple percent the whole fund property every year, so the fund actually grows less than the index.

So I take it the spread on the index fund stems from supply and demand for the fund itself, rather than the underlying stock spreads (at least not directly).

Because their prices can be so sensitive to interest rates, strategists at BlackRock generally prefer stocks outside what they call the «RUST» belt of real estate, utilities, staples and telecoms — where low - volatility funds tend to have bigger concentrations than S&P 500 index funds.

For example, the U.S. version of the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index Fund (NYSE: EEM, recently launched in Canada as ticker XEM) has posted large tracking errors over the past three years, lagging its index by 4.8 % in 2007, besting it by 3.3 % in 2008, and trailing again by more than 9 % so far this Index Fund (NYSE: EEM, recently launched in Canada as ticker XEM) has posted large tracking errors over the past three years, lagging its index by 4.8 % in 2007, besting it by 3.3 % in 2008, and trailing again by more than 9 % so far this index by 4.8 % in 2007, besting it by 3.3 % in 2008, and trailing again by more than 9 % so far this year.

So it's simply not true to say that actively managed funds have no chance of earning higher returns than index funds over the long term.

It's true that most actively managed funds did even worse, and that broad - market index funds are now capped so no company can ever make up more than 10 %.

So why would you use a barbell rather than simply holding a broad - based bond index fund?

So if you contribute frequently, or if you have a small account (less than $ 30,000 or so), it is more efficient to use TD's e-Series index mutual fundSo if you contribute frequently, or if you have a small account (less than $ 30,000 or so), it is more efficient to use TD's e-Series index mutual fundso), it is more efficient to use TD's e-Series index mutual funds.

So now, our «active» investment style of holding individual stocks actually carries lower costs than if we were to invest our clients» money in passive index funds.

They also have more liquidity than an index fund, as index funds can only be bought or sold once a day, whereas ETFs can be bought and sold throughout the trading day, so it can be a great vehicle for day traders, and much safer than day trading just one stock.

So active funds typically have a higher expense ratio than a simple passive index fund.

So if by sticking to low - cost choices such as index funds and ETFs our Fiftysomething investor is able to lower his annual investment expenses to, say, 0.25 % a year instead of 1 %, he might be able to earn 5.75 % after expenses rather than 5 %, in which case saving 20 % a year and working three more years could leave him with a nest egg of just under $ 700,000 rather than $ 635,000.

Index funds keep your fees low (so your total return ends up much better than most actively managed funds).

But beating an index fund is not an easy thing to do, so it is important to know sooner rather than later if your forays into active management are paying off.

The fees charged by index funds are much lower than those charged by actively managed funds, which gives the former group a head start, so to speak.

Because the assets tracking cap - weighted indexes are so much greater than those tracking fundamental - weighted indexes ($ 7 trillion vs. approximately $ 100 billion), the market impact model predicts that the costs of cap - weighted index investing would be substantially greater, in fact, roughly 25 times greater, than those of fundamental - weighted index funds.

So the fact is that from the first thought of doing this forty years ago to when they didn't even exist, they now exist and they are almost costless and the data from the period from which you «ve had index funds, the data is overwhelming that each year the index funds does better than 2/3 of so called «active» managers who try to pick the great stocks and the 1/3 that seem to win in any one year are not the same who do better in the next yeaSo the fact is that from the first thought of doing this forty years ago to when they didn't even exist, they now exist and they are almost costless and the data from the period from which you «ve had index funds, the data is overwhelming that each year the index funds does better than 2/3 of so called «active» managers who try to pick the great stocks and the 1/3 that seem to win in any one year are not the same who do better in the next yeaso called «active» managers who try to pick the great stocks and the 1/3 that seem to win in any one year are not the same who do better in the next year.

So the overall yield of each fund is less than 2.5 % — not much by historical standards, but still higher than the yield offered by the broader S&P 500 index.

More so than any other investment fund company, The Vanguard Group has offered a very wide array of passive index funds for many years.

Of course the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway follows none of that advice himself, but he has consistently said that most investors including his own wife would be better off with a low - fee S&P 500 index fund rather than paying expensive active managers so it's certainly not out of character.

So when you factor in higher management fees and the possibility of lower returns than broader - based index funds, investors could be giving up about 1 % in average annual investment returns.

These index mutual funds are designed to track major market indexes rather than beat them, so you're not paying for expensive fund managers or high trading costs.

So if you enjoyed that one but you're looking for more than just those index fund strategies, you'll find this book to be quite useful.

This is something that hasn't happened before when so many people were invested in index funds (more than 42 percent of fund investors now hold index funds, a percentage that has never been larger in history, and that has almost tripled in the last 10 years).

So for example, if you're considering using an S&P 500 index fund in your 401 (k), rather than wondering whether or not that would count as stock picking, you can instead try to directly address the important questions:

Index funds invest by tracking an index, such as the S&P 500, so they're less expensive than a mutual fund, which is actively managed by a professiIndex funds invest by tracking an index, such as the S&P 500, so they're less expensive than a mutual fund, which is actively managed by a professiindex, such as the S&P 500, so they're less expensive than a mutual fund, which is actively managed by a professional.

The MSCI USA Index contains about 100 more companies than the S&P 500, so the fund has a few more selections to choose from than SPLV.

investment needed to get into more than a few funds (so you want to access different index funds — not just the SP 500).

In fact, there are more than 350 index funds from which to choose, so when you start to look into investing your money in an index fund, you'll need to understand these two things:

but that fund was not trying to beat the index it was trying to signifigantly outpace inflaction, give the investor a decent return and do so with less volatility than an index....

With such broad indexes, funds are more likely to use sampling techniques, rather than buying every security, so there's a greater chance of tracking error.

We also have stock index funds and 401 (k) plans, which could boost that by about 50 percent without depleting principal if we ever needed it, but, so far, we can't seem to spend more than $ 25,000 no matter how much we let loose.

The S&P 500 has a compound annual growth rate of 9.94 % since 1970, so it would seem that it could be easy to buy a low fee index fund and make more than 2.875 %.

Oh, and stories like one of your previous postings on how mutual funds do so much worse than the indexes they track helped with the decision as well.

If you're looking for substantially more yield than what's on offer from the broader market (Standard & Poor's 500 - stock index delivers about 1.9 % at present), you'll want to look at so called «high dividend» funds like the HDV.

Hi Mike, I have confused myself again... if the expense ratios are so much lower on the ETF funds than comparable Index Funds, why would you ever buy or invest an Index funds than comparable Index Funds, why would you ever buy or invest an Index Funds, why would you ever buy or invest an Index Fund?

For instance, the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY) owns the stocks in the benchmark S&P 500 Index... so rather than buy 500 individual companies, you can just buy this one fund and achieve the same goal.

So it has a lot more to do with whether or not it's an indexing strategy than whether or not it's an ETF or a mutual fund.

They said they had mutual funds with lower MERs than that, and higher returns than the index funds, so why didn't they have a wealth management specialist call me?»

At least your index fund won't get so easily gamed, and given the small cap effect over time, you'll probably do better than the S&P 500, even excluding the effects of gaming.

So while it's true that index funds will produce returns that are a hair below the market average, they will still do better than the average actively managed fund.