UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (3) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Prev | Next | Next Thread
Author: brwhiz Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 76075  
Subject: Re: Roth vs. 403B Date: 5/23/2002 3:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Be sure to check expenses. Many 403(b) providers are expensive, so compare the expenses of your 403(b) (both "investment advisory fees" and "M&E expenses" if they are annuity products, or "expense ratios" if they are mutual funds). TIAA-CREF and Vanguard are well-known for low expenses (the Vanguard Total Stock Market Fund and Vanguard 500 Fund have a lower expense ratio than TIAA-CREF, but TIAA-CREF Equity Index is great if you don't have Vanguard).

Be careful with the term "expense ratio". What is actually germane are transaction fees and management expenses taken by the offering company or load fees (commissions) taken by the fund. What most people seem to miss is that money represented by the expense ratio is subtracted out of gross proceeds BEFORE computing a fund's yield. A fund which has a long term yield of 12% and an expense ratio of 3% is definitely a better bet than one with a yield of 11% and an expense ratio of 0.5%. The first has an actual yield 1% greater than the second; the expense ratio has no direct effect.

Expense ratio has an indirect effect, however. It does represent money that is taken out of the gross proceeds in order to pay for all the management which takes care of the fund, leaving less to split up amoungst the holders of the fund shares. But a company having a high expense ratio may be spending this money efficiently on research or other factors which are creating greater gross proceeds for the fund. There are some statistical studies that show a MODERATE correlation between expense ratios and fund yield over long periods of time, but it is definitely not the rule that you will ALWAYS do better in a fund with a lower expense ratio. One classic example is Schroder Ultra Inv (SMCFX) which has an expense ratio of 3.0% but a 3 year CAGR of 100%. Yes, it has doubled in value EVERY year for the past 3 years, with no appreciable hiccups anywhere on its growth curve. I'd pay 15% in commissions and wouldn't care if the expense ratio were 10% if I could get hold of a fund that performed like that!!! (Unfortunately this fund is now closed to new investors).

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (3) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Prev | Next | Next Thread

Announcements

The Retire Early Home Page
Discussion on accelerating retirement day.
Pencils of Promise - Back to School Drive
"Pencils of Promise works with communities across the globe to build schools and create programs that provide education opportunities for children."
Post of the Day:
Value Hounds

Netflix Riles Investors
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and "#1 Media Company to Work For" (BusinessInsider 2011)! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement