<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Vanguard Index Funds Are Not The Cheapest In Town</title>
	<atom:link href="http://amateurassetallocator.com/2009/05/11/vanguard-index-funds-not-the-cheapest/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://amateurassetallocator.com/2009/05/11/vanguard-index-funds-not-the-cheapest/</link>
	<description>Amateur Asset Allocator</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:16:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://amateurassetallocator.com/2009/05/11/vanguard-index-funds-not-the-cheapest/comment-page-1/#comment-15958</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:20:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amateurassetallocator.com/?p=1436#comment-15958</guid>
		<description>VG&#039;s Admiral Shares now require a minimum of only 10K, for most funds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>VG&#8217;s Admiral Shares now require a minimum of only 10K, for most funds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://amateurassetallocator.com/2009/05/11/vanguard-index-funds-not-the-cheapest/comment-page-1/#comment-6712</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:13:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amateurassetallocator.com/?p=1436#comment-6712</guid>
		<description>If there isn&#039;t a significant cost difference, I would stick with Vanguard also. It is a great company.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If there isn&#8217;t a significant cost difference, I would stick with Vanguard also. It is a great company.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://amateurassetallocator.com/2009/05/11/vanguard-index-funds-not-the-cheapest/comment-page-1/#comment-4281</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:11:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amateurassetallocator.com/?p=1436#comment-4281</guid>
		<description>Very good article. Index funds is one way to invest. I prefer ETFs to mutual funds. But how should one invest to make better returns? 

In my opinion, it is all a matter of market timing. It does not matter if it is gold, oil, or Microsoft, if you have access to good market timing signals, they will help you get in and out at a profit.

No guarantees in this business, but if they are right most of the time, you can still make $s.

There are may web sites providing them out there (search Google). Just find one that works and use it! Check out http://invetrics.com as an example.

Its Dow Jones timing signals are up 44.7% as of 6/24/09 while the Dow is up just 26% off its March lows.

Following a market timing system works!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very good article. Index funds is one way to invest. I prefer ETFs to mutual funds. But how should one invest to make better returns? </p>
<p>In my opinion, it is all a matter of market timing. It does not matter if it is gold, oil, or Microsoft, if you have access to good market timing signals, they will help you get in and out at a profit.</p>
<p>No guarantees in this business, but if they are right most of the time, you can still make $s.</p>
<p>There are may web sites providing them out there (search Google). Just find one that works and use it! Check out <a href="http://invetrics.com" rel="nofollow">http://invetrics.com</a> as an example.</p>
<p>Its Dow Jones timing signals are up 44.7% as of 6/24/09 while the Dow is up just 26% off its March lows.</p>
<p>Following a market timing system works!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: No Debt Plan</title>
		<link>http://amateurassetallocator.com/2009/05/11/vanguard-index-funds-not-the-cheapest/comment-page-1/#comment-4023</link>
		<dc:creator>No Debt Plan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 15:37:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amateurassetallocator.com/?p=1436#comment-4023</guid>
		<description>Also isn&#039;t Fidelity&#039;s minimum investment $10,000? That&#039;s one reason I went with Vanguard over them (on top of them being a non-profit and having great Target Retirement Funds). Vanguard&#039;s minimum is $3,000.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also isn&#8217;t Fidelity&#8217;s minimum investment $10,000? That&#8217;s one reason I went with Vanguard over them (on top of them being a non-profit and having great Target Retirement Funds). Vanguard&#8217;s minimum is $3,000.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ObliviousInvestor</title>
		<link>http://amateurassetallocator.com/2009/05/11/vanguard-index-funds-not-the-cheapest/comment-page-1/#comment-4022</link>
		<dc:creator>ObliviousInvestor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 12:55:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amateurassetallocator.com/?p=1436#comment-4022</guid>
		<description>You bring up a great point here.

The reason that Fidelity and Schwab&#039;s index funds carry such low costs is because of a &quot;fee waiver&quot; that&#039;s outlined in the prospectus. In other words, as you hypothesized, they really &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; running those funds for less than it costs them.

The catch is that, as outlined in the prospectuses, they&#039;re allowed to eliminate the fee waiver at any point in time. As an example, Schwab&#039;s fund that tracks the Wilshire 5000 would have an expense ratio of 0.38% (rather than the publicized 0.09%) if they were they were to eliminate the waiver.

So if you go with anything other than Vanguard, you&#039;re on the hook for having to continually check to make sure the waiver is still in place.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You bring up a great point here.</p>
<p>The reason that Fidelity and Schwab&#8217;s index funds carry such low costs is because of a &#8220;fee waiver&#8221; that&#8217;s outlined in the prospectus. In other words, as you hypothesized, they really <i>are</i> running those funds for less than it costs them.</p>
<p>The catch is that, as outlined in the prospectuses, they&#8217;re allowed to eliminate the fee waiver at any point in time. As an example, Schwab&#8217;s fund that tracks the Wilshire 5000 would have an expense ratio of 0.38% (rather than the publicized 0.09%) if they were they were to eliminate the waiver.</p>
<p>So if you go with anything other than Vanguard, you&#8217;re on the hook for having to continually check to make sure the waiver is still in place.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

