Sponsored Links..

Sponsors

Search

  • Google
    Web FMF

Disclaimer


  • Any information shared on Free Money Finance does not constitute financial advice. The Website is intended to provide general information only and does not attempt to give you advice that relates to your specific circumstances. You are advised to discuss your specific requirements with an independent financial adviser. All posts are © 2005-2009, Free Money Finance.

« How to Kill a State | Main | One Year Ago This Week -- November 16 »

November 16, 2007

Index Funds Continue to Be Great Investments

Here's a piece from MSN Money that talks about the fact that many investment advisors/money managers charge a fortune to handle your investments. So what's the alternative? Index funds, of course. The details:

Today's index funds make it possible to build a diversified portfolio at very low cost. With a combination of mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, you can build a portfolio for an average cost of about three-tenths of 1%. If you are approaching retirement with a portfolio of $250,000, you can save $1,750 a year over a 1% annual charge from a manager or $4,250 over a 2% annual charge.

Yep, that's one reason I love index funds -- they keep costs low, which in turn helps you earn a better return on your money.

For more on the advantages of index fund investing, see these posts:

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/318695/23208032

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Index Funds Continue to Be Great Investments:

Comments

It's so true. When I changed jobs I rolled my old 401k into an ira with a money manager. I like him a lot. He's sound in his strategy, long-term oriented and doesn't try to sell me anything. He's exactly the type of guy I'd want to have as a financial adviser. I pay him 1.25%. I've always resisted sending him more assets because of that. You combine the 1.25% and the fact that the actively managed funds have an expense ratio that's at least 1% higher than indexes, that means he's got to beat the index by 2.25% just to break even. My separate portfolio of three index funds has consistently outperformed him. And it's not that he's done badly, far from it, he's done great compared to a single full market index. I just wonder, though, in the long run, if I'm just not better off pocketing the 2.25% and accepting the index's level of returns and getting my performance above the S&P500, etc., through the diversification of indexes.

I probably will at some point. But I feel bad about it, because there are time when you really do need a financial adviser and he's just the type of person I'd select.

I believe it is Bogle who once said something along the lines of "Performance comes and goes but costs roll on forever". So true. No magic fund manager can consistently bring top level performance, but they can guarantee you a higher cost than an index fund.

Post a comment

Site Sponsors







  • null

Money Blogs

Stats