I want to move from stocks to tax-friendly, indexed mutual funds. The
Vanguard funds seem great. But All my stuff is in Schwab, and they
charge a sizable fee ($50 minimum) per transaction for Vanguard.
I don't want to hastily jump ship, I like Schwab. Does anyone know of
any Vanguard-caliber funds that are on Schwab's no-fee list?
Look over Scottrade's Vanguard offerings, and if everything's to your
satisfaction, mail a check. $17 in, and that's it ($17 out when holding
a position less than 180 days, apart from any and all prospectus
surcharges). Mere tuppences compared to the Ancient Regime. And not
at all bad for end-of-year tax declarations, either. Pull a timeframe
window from a spreadsheet import, couple of yellow highlites, and an
accountant will think it's pretty peachy. These days, it's a wireless
game, anyway, so I wouldn't carry the loyalty propiganda too far. The
edges are there to find what cuts.
wrote:
> I want to move from stocks to tax-friendly, indexed mutual funds. The
> Vanguard funds seem great. But All my stuff is in Schwab, and they
> charge a sizable fee ($50 minimum) per transaction for Vanguard.
>
> I don't want to hastily jump ship, I like Schwab. Does anyone know of
> any Vanguard-caliber funds that are on Schwab's no-fee list?
wrote:
>
> I want to move from stocks to tax-friendly, indexed mutual funds. The
> Vanguard funds seem great. But All my stuff is in Schwab, and they
> charge a sizable fee ($50 minimum) per transaction for Vanguard.
>
> I don't want to hastily jump ship, I like Schwab. Does anyone know of
> any Vanguard-caliber funds that are on Schwab's no-fee list?
You have to understand that Schwab charges the funds 35-40 basis points
to participate in One Source.
So the fund in turn is going to have to charge that much just to break
even, let alone adding in the management fee, small though it may be.
So you won't find a OneSource fund with expenses under 50 basis points,
other than Schwab's own funds.
(Okay, there are a couple of index fund exceptions - Dreyfus Bond Market
Index fund at 40 basis points, and Federated MidCap Index at 49 basis
points :-)
Schwab S&P 500 Index Fund, Select Shares ($25K minimum) at 19 basis
points might be reasonable, but that's about it. Your best bet, if you
want to stick with Schwab, might be to go with ETFs (e.g. you can buy
Vanguard's Large Cap VIPER or Total Stock Market VIPER with mere 7 basis
point expense ratios, vs. Vanguard 500 fund with its 18 basis points or
Vanguard Total Stock Market fund with its 19 basis points).
For ETFs, you'll pay a stock commission, not a fund commission; Schwab's
stock commissions are at least a bit more reasonable - $20 if you have
under $50K invested with them, $13 for accounts up to $1M, and $10 for
seven-figure accounts.
Schwab OneSource offers the occasional load fund without a load (e.g.
Diamond Hill), but since you have no interest in actively managed funds,
Schwab would not seem to be the best place for you to do fund investing.
--
Mark Freeland
"Flasherly" <> wrote
> Look over Scottrade's Vanguard offerings, and if everything's to your
> satisfaction, mail a check. $17 in, and that's it ($17 out when holding
> a position less than 180 days, apart from any and all prospectus
> surcharges).
Vanguard Funds are no longer NTF at Scottrade if I recall correctly.
Vanguard does offer a growing list of Vipers that can be traded for $7
without a 180 ERF.
Ed wrote:
> Vanguard Funds are no longer NTF at Scottrade if I recall correctly.
> Vanguard does offer a growing list of Vipers that can be traded for $7
> without a 180 ERF.
They're listing 85 Vanguard funds. I read Scotty practically as an
advisement for a $17 comission in, and $17 additionally out on most all
postions held under 180 days. But I'd speak with a rep if considering
NTF sources on a DCA/IRA setup. Those few Exchange Traded Funds I
bought were at $7 in and $7 out, anytime, same as stocks. Vipers I'd
think standard lineup.
Mark Freeland wrote:
> (Okay, there are a couple of index fund exceptions - Dreyfus Bond Market
> Index fund at 40 basis points, and Federated MidCap Index at 49 basis
> points :-)
Also Payden Limited Maturity.
Darin
What exactly do you like about Schwab? Does it make up for the fact that
they simply don't compete well with places like Vanguard and Fidelity when
it comes to funds offered with competitive costs?
If so, take a few of the suggestions here but also just be prepared to pay
extra (and I wouldn't call it "a little extra," either) for whatever it is
you like so much about Schwab.
If we're talking about a lot of assets, I'd just open a second account at
Vanguard right now and see how it goes with it. I keep brokerage accounts
with two different firms, mostly to play them off each other to some extent.
<> wrote
> I want to move from stocks to tax-friendly, indexed mutual funds. The
> Vanguard funds seem great. But All my stuff is in Schwab, and they
> charge a sizable fee ($50 minimum) per transaction for Vanguard.
>
> I don't want to hastily jump ship, I like Schwab. Does anyone know of
> any Vanguard-caliber funds that are on Schwab's no-fee list?
>
Flasherly wrote:
>
> Ed wrote:
> > Vanguard Funds are no longer NTF at Scottrade if I recall correctly.
> > Vanguard does offer a growing list of Vipers that can be traded for
> > $7 without a 180 ERF.
>
> They're listing 85 Vanguard funds. I read Scotty practically as an
> advisement for a $17 comission in, and $17 additionally out on most all
> postions held under 180 days. But I'd speak with a rep if considering
> NTF sources on a DCA/IRA setup. Those few Exchange Traded Funds I
> bought were at $7 in and $7 out, anytime, same as stocks. Vipers I'd
> think standard lineup.
Scottrade seems to have dropped the cheaper Admiral share class (at
least that means that these are 85 distinct funds as opposed to double
counting funds due to multiple share classes). Within the Investor
share class, it misses a couple of index funds (the OP had asked about
index funds only):
Vanguard Large Cap Index Fund - Vanguard's MSCI-based LC blend index
Vanguard Developed Market Indx - Vanguard's MSCI EAFE index fund
If one's goal is to minimize fund commission charges while
consolidating, one can do better - FirstTrade doesn't charge at all
(though like Scottrade, one has to wonder how long that will last), and
BrownCo charges just 30% of Scottrade's commission - $5/Vanguard fund
trade.
Brownco offers Admiral shares and Developed Market Index - though it
also misses Vanguard Large Cap Index Fund. It seems that Fidelity is
the only discount brokerage selling this fund, so it is not as though
one could have invested in it through Schwab anyway.
--
Mark Freeland
Elle wrote:
>
> What exactly do you like about Schwab? Does it make up for the fact
> that they simply don't compete well with places like Vanguard and
> Fidelity when it comes to funds offered with competitive costs?
Speaking for myself, I like the fact that Schwab (and most brokerages)
offer American Century Funds NTF while Fidelity does not. I like the
fact that Schwab offers N&B Investor class shares NTF, while Fidelity
offers only the higher cost Trust class shares NTF (though it will sell
you the cheaper shares for $75/purchase).
(N&B funds)
I like the fact that one is more likely to find loads waived/minimums
reduced at Schwab than elsewhere. I like the fact that I'm guaranteed
not to be charged a maintenance fee for my IRA, ever, even when Schwab
changes its fee structure yet again.
> [...]
> If we're talking about a lot of assets [...]
Then Vanguard's Flagship service beats Fidelity's Private Client service
on fund costs - Vanguard will not charge you for a dozen non-NTF trades
a year, while Fidelity will still charge you $75 for each non-NTF
purchase. And Vanguard facilitates DCA investing in non-NTF funds (for
all investors) by charging just $3/purchase, compared with Fidelity's
$75 on each periodic investment.
--
Mark Freeland
"Mark Freeland" <> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> >
> > What exactly do you like about Schwab? Does it make up for the fact
> > that they simply don't compete well with places like Vanguard and
> > Fidelity when it comes to funds offered with competitive costs?
>
> Speaking for myself, I like the fact that Schwab (and most brokerages)
> offer American Century Funds NTF while Fidelity does not.
Read the first post in the thread. The OP is interested in specifically tax
friendly, indexed funds. My comments on Vanguard and Fidelity were with
specific reference to index funds. Your comments appear to concern much more
than tax friendly index funds.
"Elle" <> wrote
> "Mark Freeland" <> wrote
>> Elle wrote:
>> >
>> > What exactly do you like about Schwab? Does it make up for the fact
>> > that they simply don't compete well with places like Vanguard and
>> > Fidelity when it comes to funds offered with competitive costs?
>>
>> Speaking for myself, I like the fact that Schwab (and most brokerages)
>> offer American Century Funds NTF while Fidelity does not.
>
> Read the first post in the thread. The OP is interested in specifically
> tax
> friendly, indexed funds. My comments on Vanguard and Fidelity were with
> specific reference to index funds. Your comments appear to concern much
> more
> than tax friendly index funds.
Read the first sentence of Mark's post:
"Speaking for myself".
Your reply from above:
"What exactly do you like about Schwab? Does it make up for the fact that
they simply don't compete well with places like Vanguard and Fidelity when
it comes to funds offered with competitive costs?
If so, take a few of the suggestions here but also just be prepared to pay
extra (and I wouldn't call it "a little extra," either) for whatever it is
you like so much about Schwab.
If we're talking about a lot of assets, I'd just open a second account at
Vanguard right now and see how it goes with it. I keep brokerage accounts
with two different firms, mostly to play them off each other to some
extent."
What has that got to do with index funds?
You are ALWAYS on the defensive and so you should be.
You must think that nobody likes you, I think you're right.
The OP should just move his damned money to Vanguard and screw the brokerage
account. If he still wants a broker for some reason then he should just move
the bulk of his money to Vanguard. This is not rocket science. If he can't
make up his mind he'll have to work it out.
Ed wrote:
> The OP should just move his damned money to Vanguard and screw the brokerage
> account.
If only Vanguard weren't such a pain to do business with.
Darin
"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Ed wrote:
>> The OP should just move his damned money to Vanguard and screw the
>> brokerage
>> account.
>
> If only Vanguard weren't such a pain to do business with.
>
> Darin
I think they shortened the ERF times. I don't do a lot with them but I never
had a problem.
I do have a lot of problems with their high minimums for the better funds,
sales charge and redemption fee on at least one of their funds, etc.
"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
news:
>
>
> If only Vanguard weren't such a pain to do business with.
I suppose it may depend on what kind of service you want, or to use someone
else's expression, whether you are a "high maintenance customer". For
instance, Vanguard does not provide phone service 24 hours a day (nothing on
Sundays, and shut down at night on other days). And they do place an
impediment to (but not a ban of)frequent trading (60 day round trips), if
that's your style.
But I've always found them helpful, easy to deal with. Recently I was
working with one of their financial planners who was thorough, spent time
explaining things, followed up with calls, etc.
I rarely buy or sell at Vanguard (mostly hold and hold and hold :-), but
when I do, I've not had any problems. When I've sent email questions to
them, their turnaround time has been much better than what I've gotten with
my larger account at Fidelity.
Obviously I haven't stressed their system, but for the mundane fund stuff,
they've seemed fine to me. I know that you've complained about their
brokerage services (which I've never seen rated highly)
(your post on brokerage issues)
but that doesn't make their fund side difficult to deal with. And you have
spoken positively of the restrictions they impose on frequent trading, so
some of the "pain" you're alluding to now may have seemed to you to be
"healthy pain" :-).
So I'm a bit at a loss to understand what "pains" you so about Vanguard,
fund side. Could you elaborate?
--
Mark Freeland
Mark Freeland wrote:
> If one's goal is to minimize fund commission charges while
> consolidating, one can do better - FirstTrade doesn't charge at all
> (though like Scottrade, one has to wonder how long that will last), and
> BrownCo charges just 30% of Scottrade's commission - $5/Vanguard fund
> trade.
>
> Brownco offers Admiral shares and Developed Market Index - though it
> also misses Vanguard Large Cap Index Fund. It seems that Fidelity is
> the only discount brokerage selling this fund, so it is not as though
> one could have invested in it through Schwab anyway.
I sold my remaining Vanguard shares last week, VIVAX, but was in
Scottrade at the start, while there were no commissions, while they
expanded their customer base before nailing them with the $17 fee
structure. Good times and experience for a couple of years, even if I
did exactly the opposite. I bought prolifically in smaller allotments,
often adjusting for market momentum and trends. I thought of it as
chance to indiscriminately model without fee restrictions while
assuming the usual risks. But now I'm 30% down from all that
diversity, as you say, consolidated, and often trade at 60%+ higher
allotment exposure. An enjoyable experience, as I said, and BrownCo
would be a worthwhile consideration if I had it to do over again.
Mark Freeland wrote:
> So I'm a bit at a loss to understand what "pains" you so about Vanguard,
> fund side. Could you elaborate?
Ed and Mark--
If all you want is a fund or two, I guess it's probably okay, depending
on which fund it is and what Vanguard's rules currently are. I haven't
dealt directly with Vanguard in a few years, so I'm not up on the
latest. Whenever I, a family member, or a friend has had accounts
there, though, we've always been glad to move the assets elsewhere.
Vanguard has a habit of making things difficult on its customers,
whether it's by forcing you to make transactions on index funds by US
Post (!), or by requiring two accounts if you want to hold both
Vanguard and non-Vanguard assets (i.e., the brokerage accounts can't
hold Vanguard funds), or by layering too many trading disincentives (it
is possible to overdo them), or whatever. It feels like they're always
doing something annoying. I'm also upset with them for changing the
investment objectives for some of their funds to the point where the
funds are now useless to me.
Darin
I know how you feel. I get my index funds via ETF's. I'm happy to pay the $7
to Scottrade rather than put up with their nonsense. Don't need it, don't
have to put up with it.
"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Mark Freeland wrote:
>> So I'm a bit at a loss to understand what "pains" you so about Vanguard,
>> fund side. Could you elaborate?
>
> Ed and Mark--
>
> If all you want is a fund or two, I guess it's probably okay, depending
> on which fund it is and what Vanguard's rules currently are. I haven't
> dealt directly with Vanguard in a few years, so I'm not up on the
> latest. Whenever I, a family member, or a friend has had accounts
> there, though, we've always been glad to move the assets elsewhere.
> Vanguard has a habit of making things difficult on its customers,
> whether it's by forcing you to make transactions on index funds by US
> Post (!), or by requiring two accounts if you want to hold both
> Vanguard and non-Vanguard assets (i.e., the brokerage accounts can't
> hold Vanguard funds), or by layering too many trading disincentives (it
> is possible to overdo them), or whatever. It feels like they're always
> doing something annoying. I'm also upset with them for changing the
> investment objectives for some of their funds to the point where the
> funds are now useless to me.
>
> Darin
>
"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote
> Mark Freeland wrote:
> > So I'm a bit at a loss to understand what "pains" you so about Vanguard,
> > fund side. Could you elaborate?
>
> Ed and Mark--
>
> If all you want is a fund or two, I guess it's probably okay, depending
> on which fund it is and what Vanguard's rules currently are. I haven't
> dealt directly with Vanguard in a few years, so I'm not up on the
> latest. Whenever I, a family member, or a friend has had accounts
> there, though, we've always been glad to move the assets elsewhere.
> Vanguard has a habit of making things difficult on its customers,
> whether it's by forcing you to make transactions on index funds by US
> Post (!),
This has to be significantly outdated.
> or by requiring two accounts if you want to hold both
> Vanguard and non-Vanguard assets (i.e., the brokerage accounts can't
> hold Vanguard funds),
Pfft. All mutual fund/brokerage houses have their pecadilloes.
> or by layering too many trading disincentives (it
> is possible to overdo them), or whatever. It feels like they're always
> doing something annoying. I'm also upset with them for changing the
> investment objectives for some of their funds to the point where the
> funds are now useless to me.
I have relatives and friends (strictly mutual fund-ers) who say Vanguard is
great.
I wouldn't take the comments of a guy who routinely posts recreationally
from his government job and can't read graphs very seriously.
Usenet is the ultimate marketplace of ideas. The integrity (or lack thereof)
of the witnesses is vital to discussion. Not to mention this bullshit is
happening on my tax dollar.
Ed wrote:
> I know how you feel. I get my index funds via ETF's. I'm happy to pay the $7
> to Scottrade rather than put up with their nonsense. Don't need it, don't
> have to put up with it.
That's my attitude now, too, and I'm someone who often holds for
several years, if not longer.
Darin
"Elle" <> wrote
> Usenet is the ultimate marketplace of ideas. The integrity (or lack
> thereof)
> of the witnesses is vital to discussion. Not to mention this bullshit is
> happening on my tax dollar.
So why then does anyone talk to you Ms. PhD?
Mark Freeland wrote:
> Could you elaborate?
Just to follow up, I contacted a friend who's more up-to-date on
Vanguard's policies than I am. She confirms that Vanguard required
that investors make transactions in index funds by US Post *only* as
recently as around two or three years ago. For some reason, you could
trade online if you held the funds in an IRA, though. Even now, if you
want to make more than two exchanges out of an index fund at Vanguard,
you need to submit your request by mail. That's just obnoxious.
Granted, it keeps rapid traders away...but it also keeps me away, and
I'm not a rapid trader at all.
That's only one example. I don't recall some of the other issues
because it's been too long and it's not that important in my life.
(Disclaimer: Obviously, since I'm posting this from my work computer
while waiting for a program to run to completion, everything I've
written is false.)
Darin
"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote
> (Disclaimer: Obviously, since I'm posting this from my work computer
> while waiting for a program to run to completion, everything I've
> written is false.)
It certainly gives you little grounds to complain about the services other
businesses provide. Maybe Vanguard employees wish they could hang around on
Usenet during "work" hours, and rationalize it, too. Disgusting conduct. On
the taxpayers' dollar. Justifies all sorts of people ripping off all sorts
of others.
If you sell a fund at Vanguard you can't buy it back for 90 days.
Boy, not only is Elle PhD a liar, she's a bitch too.
"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Mark Freeland wrote:
>> Could you elaborate?
>
> Just to follow up, I contacted a friend who's more up-to-date on
> Vanguard's policies than I am. She confirms that Vanguard required
> that investors make transactions in index funds by US Post *only* as
> recently as around two or three years ago. For some reason, you could
> trade online if you held the funds in an IRA, though. Even now, if you
> want to make more than two exchanges out of an index fund at Vanguard,
> you need to submit your request by mail. That's just obnoxious.
> Granted, it keeps rapid traders away...but it also keeps me away, and
> I'm not a rapid trader at all.
>
> That's only one example. I don't recall some of the other issues
> because it's been too long and it's not that important in my life.
>
> (Disclaimer: Obviously, since I'm posting this from my work computer
> while waiting for a program to run to completion, everything I've
> written is false.)
>
> Darin
>
I wrote...
> Even now, if you
> want to make more than two exchanges out of an index fund at Vanguard,
> you need to submit your request by mail.
Oops. I guess what I wrote *was* false. I forgot a qualifier. That
mail requirement is for more than two sells within a rolling 12-month
period.
Oh, and I extend my sincerest apologies to the taxpayers of America for
posting this rather than working through my lunch break.
Darin
"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote
> I wrote...
> > Even now, if you
> > want to make more than two exchanges out of an index fund at Vanguard,
> > you need to submit your request by mail.
>
> Oops. I guess what I wrote *was* false. I forgot a qualifier. That
> mail requirement is for more than two sells within a rolling 12-month
> period.
So how much work time did you take to figure out that you were wrong?
> Oh, and I extend my sincerest apologies to the taxpayers of America for
> posting this rather than working through my lunch break.
What about your circa 10 AM and 11 AM EST posts of late, you fraud?
You need to take this seriously.
No wonder the government couldn't handle disaster relief. They have bozos
like you pretending to work but who are actually playing, on the taxpayers'
dollar. <Usenet snarl>
> > Oops. I guess what I wrote *was* false. I forgot a qualifier. That
> > mail requirement is for more than two sells within a rolling 12-month
> > period.
>
> So how much work time did you take to figure out that you were wrong?
None. When I came back to check the thread, I noted my mistake and
corrected it. It was something I'd forgotten to include, not something
I had to research.
> > Oh, and I extend my sincerest apologies to the taxpayers of America for
> > posting this rather than working through my lunch break.
>
> What about your circa 10 AM and 11 AM EST posts of late, you fraud?
What about them? I've already told you more than once that my job
sometimes involves running code that takes a few minutes or more to do
its thing, and I can't do all that much until I see the output. Oh,
there's little stuff I can do here and there, but sometimes I'll wander
over to this group to see what's going on. I have a hard time
believing this is a big deal to anyone with actual experience in the
workforce.
But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Here's a question for all taxpayers in the
group. Are you offended by my occasional posts during work hours? If
so, then I'll stop immediately.
Note that I've posted to Usenet 61 times in the last six months.
That's about once every three days. The posts tend to occur in spurts
because of when I happen to have down time, though, so I'll do a bunch
at once and then none for a long time. Also, some of those 61 were
done during non-work hours, of course.
Let me know, all ye taxpayers. Should I stay or should I go?
Darin
"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote
> > > Oops. I guess what I wrote *was* false. I forgot a qualifier. That
> > > mail requirement is for more than two sells within a rolling 12-month
> > > period.
> >
> > So how much work time did you take to figure out that you were wrong?
>
> None. When I came back to check the thread, I noted my mistake and
> corrected it. It was something I'd forgotten to include, not something
> I had to research.
>
> > > Oh, and I extend my sincerest apologies to the taxpayers of America
for
> > > posting this rather than working through my lunch break.
> >
> > What about your circa 10 AM and 11 AM EST posts of late, you fraud?
>
> What about them? I've already told you more than once that my job
> sometimes involves running code that takes a few minutes or more to do
> its thing, and I can't do all that much until I see the output.
Uh
huh.
You're not the first time to rationalize interrupting one's work thoughts
with Usenet play.
It's not like one's professional job does not have filler for the time one
is running, say, code.
> Oh,
> there's little stuff I can do here and there,
Now you're getting it. Probably some bigger stuff you can chisel away at,
too. You might argue the bigger stuff interrupts your though process for the
code or whatever else you're doing. Well duh, what does Usenet do?
> but sometimes I'll wander
> over to this group to see what's going on.
You mean you'll be thinking about Usenet and probably some particular topic
and so want to go online for some ego gratification.
Because the bigger work jobs are not as fun as solving the smaller problems.
Yet the bigger work jobs are damned important.
> I have a hard time
> believing this is a big deal to anyone with actual experience in the
> workforce.
You're young. You're also with the government, which is particularly
lackadaisical when it comes to work ethics. The younger cultural mindset is
that "professionals" don't have to actually work during work hours. Thus we
have disasters like the government response to Katrina, amongst others.
People think that if they just go along with the status quo, all will be
fine. They're also "protected" by the psychological concept of "diffusion of
responsibility": If enough people have input on a particular project, and
the project fails in some way, it's everybody's fault, so no big deal.
Hence money is wasted. Taxpayer money. Employers' money. University money.
> But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Here's a question for all taxpayers in the
> group. Are you offended by my occasional posts during work hours? If
> so, then I'll stop immediately.
It's not about being offended. <Usenet snarl>
> Note that I've posted to Usenet 61 times in the last six months.
> That's about once every three days. The posts tend to occur in spurts
> because of when I happen to have down time, though, so I'll do a bunch
> at once and then none for a long time. Also, some of those 61 were
> done during non-work hours, of course.
>
> Let me know, all ye taxpayers. Should I stay or should I go?
Problem is, you're also consulting some people who also post during work
hours.
Like I said, it's a younger generation cultural mindset that one doesn't
really have to "work" during all work hours.
Plus, people see government employees posting during work hours. It inspires
NO confidence in the government. It's why people want to cut your pay, among
others, and with damned good reason.
Usenet is the ultimate marketplace of ideas. If you're going to post here
during work hours on the taxpayers' dime, you had damn well be prepared to
face some tough scrutiny on a very, very important topic.
Just how high up in your supervisory ladder do you think you could go before
someone says to knock off this crap (Usenet posting during work hours, also
un-anonymously, so people can tell you're employed by the government and so
abusing taxpayer dollars)?
With how high up the supervisory ladder would you be willing to share this
thread?
If it's not to the very top, man, you better think about it.
"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote
> But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Here's a question for all taxpayers in the
> group. Are you offended by my occasional posts during work hours? If
> so, then I'll stop immediately.
I think the Big Dig is offensive. I think taxpayer money to build stadiums
for pro sports teams is obscene. I think Elle is offensive most of the time,
like in this thread.
Darin, I think your posts are just fine, please continue.
"Elle" <> wrote
> Now you're getting it. Probably some bigger stuff you can chisel away at,
> too. You might argue the bigger stuff interrupts your though process for
> the
> code or whatever else you're doing. Well duh, what does Usenet do?
Just my thoughts, Sweetie, but I think Darin comes here so that he can
extract some of your venom just so that you'll be nicer to the people you
encounter over the course of your day. He, as a government employee, is
providing a public service. Cheers to Darin.
Wow!
Some of the points in this article may be relevant.
Kaspa
"kaspakhine" <> wrote
> Wow!
Which is symptomatic of the cultural mindset of which I spoke earlier.
I say, "Wow!" to the failure to build a real flood control system to NOLA;
respond effectively after Katrina; and to many other failures that tie back
to a celebration of mediocrity like the above.
> Some of the points in this article may be relevant.
>
>
Let's call a spade a spade: Being online at times is germane to some
people's work. Profuse, persistent posting to Usenet during work hours is
recreation. Don't tell me people like Darin have full-time jobs, except in
the rip-off sense.
If the authors of this article really wanted to serve employees, it would
focus on the many, many blue collar jobs where people have it far, far worse
than a jughead like Darin: It's not just that they can't go post at all; or
that they can't even go online; or that they can't even make a call home to
coordinate dinner. It's that they don't even have time to go to the bathroom
when the need hits. That they work in truly, physically perilous jobs; that
they have no health insurance whatsoever.
Sixteen minutes on ebay is okay during the workday? The authors are
self-indulgent yuppie putzes.
So there sits Darin: Fat dumb and happy on his very good government salary
with nice benefits, and thinking, ooh, he works so hard he needs a little
break on Usenet.
Except it's not a little break. And it's not irregular. It's often. Tax
dollars should not support this.
"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
news:
> > > Oops. I guess what I wrote *was* false. I forgot a qualifier.
> > > That mail requirement is for more than two sells within a rolling
> > > 12-month period.
> >
> > So how much work time did you take to figure out that you were
> > wrong?
>
> None. When I came back to check the thread, I noted my mistake
> and corrected it. It was something I'd forgotten to include, not
> something I had to research.
It was a pretty obvious omission (no fund would impose restrictions on
account of multiple redemptions spaced apart by several years).
Someone who cared about the rule would have realized that you hadn't spent
time checking - if you had, you would have made a non-obvious correction.
Vanguard imposes this restriction on equity index funds only; it does not
impose it on bond index funds. (Never let the facts get in the way of
flaming someone, I guess.)
> > > Oh, and I extend my sincerest apologies to the taxpayers of
> > > America for posting this rather than working through my lunch
> > > break.
Hey. What about apologizing to the rest of the world that's propping up the
US by funding its debt?
> > What about your circa 10 AM and 11 AM EST posts of late,
> > you fraud?
It's interesting to reread Abrams v. US, that first introduced to US law the
concept of "free trade in ideas" subject to "the competition of the market."
Holmes and Brandeis, in their dissent, advocated the marketplace of ideas
and stuck to discussing the principles of the case. It was the majority
that resorted to character attacks (discussing the principals of the case
:-), calling the defendants non-citizens, "rebels ... anarchists ...
Socialist[s]".
Even if you were a "fraud" (and a charlatan, to turn a phrase), it wouldn't
matter one iota if your posting were sound.
> [...] Here's a question for all taxpayers in the group.
> Are you offended by my occasional posts during work hours? If
> so, then I'll stop immediately.
I'm offended that they are occasional. I appreciate them and would like
more.
With respect to dealing with funds by mail being a pain, please recognize
that I still have a physical certificate for some fund shares I own. You
can just drop a note off to Vanguard in the mail; I have to go down to the
post office, fill out forms, send the paper registered!
(It's really not that bad; I could walk it into any broker, but I am
sufficiently pleased with having this oddity that I keep it.)
--
Mark Freeland
"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:x1g1f.7300$
> "kaspakhine" <> wrote
>> Wow!
>
> Which is symptomatic of the cultural mindset of which I spoke earlier.
>
> I say, "Wow!" to the failure to build a real flood control system to NOLA;
> respond effectively after Katrina; and to many other failures that tie
> back
> to a celebration of mediocrity like the above.
>
>> Some of the points in this article may be relevant.
>>
>>
>
> Let's call a spade a spade: Being online at times is germane to some
> people's work. Profuse, persistent posting to Usenet during work hours is
> recreation. Don't tell me people like Darin have full-time jobs, except in
> the rip-off sense.
>
> If the authors of this article really wanted to serve employees, it would
> focus on the many, many blue collar jobs where people have it far, far
> worse
> than a jughead like Darin: It's not just that they can't go post at all;
> or
> that they can't even go online; or that they can't even make a call home
> to
> coordinate dinner. It's that they don't even have time to go to the
> bathroom
> when the need hits. That they work in truly, physically perilous jobs;
> that
> they have no health insurance whatsoever.
>
> Sixteen minutes on ebay is okay during the workday? The authors are
> self-indulgent yuppie putzes.
>
> So there sits Darin: Fat dumb and happy on his very good government salary
> with nice benefits, and thinking, ooh, he works so hard he needs a little
> break on Usenet.
>
> Except it's not a little break. And it's not irregular. It's often. Tax
> dollars should not support this.
>
>
Elle wrote:
> Except it's not a little break. And it's not irregular. It's often.
Geez. I told you I've posted to Usenet 61 times in the last six
months. (If you don't believe me, check my posting history with
Google. You'll see that the posts are actually quite irregular. They
come in bunches, and then I'm silent for long stretches.) That's 10
posts a month, on average. Not all of those are from work, and some of
the ones that are were written during lunch, and the others were during
informal breaks. It's not as though I've been writing a novel on the
side. These are pretty brief posts, for the most part. I'm flattered
that you believe they take so long for me to compose, but they really
don't.
Incidentally, I've worked in the corporate sector before. It wasn't
much different than working for the government, except that employees
were expected to put in more overtime.
I know none of this will change your mind, since once you get a theory
in your head, you will not relinquish it for all the facts in the
world. But at least everyone else can see the obvious.
Darin
Mark Freeland wrote:
> With respect to dealing with funds by mail being a pain, please recognize
> that I still have a physical certificate for some fund shares I own.
Ah, I see. I myself am a stickler for being able to do everything
online.
> You
> can just drop a note off to Vanguard in the mail;
Yes, but as far as I know, no other fund company or brokerage has
remotely required that for time out of mind. And again, that just
happened to be the annoyance I remembered. There were others. The bit
about brokerage customers needing separate mutual-fund accounts to hold
Vanguard funds was an irritant primarily because my father could never
understand it. I was relieved when we hired an advisor and moved his
accounts to Schwab.
Then there's the changing objectives of certain funds. Change in
itself isn't bad, but when a fund goes from useful and interesting to
vanilla and pointless, I get ticked off. The example that almost
affected me was Vanguard Gold and Precious Metals, or whatever it's
called now. I didn't own it, but I planned to someday. It was a gold
fund with low expenses and some exposure to other precious metals that
would behave the way I wanted them to. Then the charter was changed so
that the fund could hold industrial metals. Why? Those metals
sometimes move opposite precious ones. Vanguard took a perfectly good
PME fund and made it...I dunno...something for which I would never have
any use. Someone might point out that the fund is still predominantly
a PME fund, but the bottom line is that I cannot count on the fund to
be holding what I want it to. The presence of industrial metals only
make the fund behave more like the market overall.
> (It's really not that bad; I could walk it into any broker, but I am
> sufficiently pleased with having this oddity that I keep it.)
I can understand that, but I wouldn't want to be *forced* to use paper.
Darin
"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > Except it's not a little break. And it's not irregular. It's often.
>
> Geez. I told you I've posted to Usenet 61 times in the last six
> months. (If you don't believe me, check my posting history with
> Google. You'll see that the posts are actually quite irregular. They
> come in bunches, and then I'm silent for long stretches.) That's 10
> posts a month, on average. Not all of those are from work, and some of
> the ones that are were written during lunch, and the others were during
> informal breaks. It's not as though I've been writing a novel on the
> side. These are pretty brief posts, for the most part. I'm flattered
> that you believe they take so long for me to compose, but they really
> don't.
I am certain they take you quite a bit of time to compose.
I haven't checked your numbers. Sixty-one times is plenty, though. That you
think even once is okay says it all.
> Incidentally, I've worked in the corporate sector before. It wasn't
> much different than working for the government, except that employees
> were expected to put in more overtime.
These are the thoughts of someone trying to rationalize not doing work
during work hours.
And son, I've worked both for Fortune 500 companies and the U.S. government.
Your behavior is frowned upon, at a minimum.
> I know none of this will change your mind, since once you get a theory
> in your head, you will not relinquish it for all the facts in the
> world. But at least everyone else can see the obvious.
Dear boy, do not--DO NOT--think you serve yourself, the government, the
taxpayer or anyone else well by rationalizing unethical and quite possibly
illegal behavior.
"Mark Freeland" <> wrote in message
news:A4g1f.1451$
> "Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
> news:
> > > > Oops. I guess what I wrote *was* false. I forgot a qualifier.
> > > > That mail requirement is for more than two sells within a rolling
> > > > 12-month period.
> > >
> > > So how much work time did you take to figure out that you were
> > > wrong?
> >
> > None. When I came back to check the thread, I noted my mistake
> > and corrected it. It was something I'd forgotten to include, not
> > something I had to research.
>
> It was a pretty obvious omission (no fund would impose restrictions on
> account of multiple redemptions spaced apart by several years).
>
> Someone who cared about the rule would have realized that you hadn't spent
> time checking - if you had, you would have made a non-obvious correction.
> Vanguard imposes this restriction on equity index funds only; it does not
> impose it on bond index funds. (Never let the facts get in the way of
> flaming someone, I guess.)
>
> > > > Oh, and I extend my sincerest apologies to the taxpayers of
> > > > America for posting this rather than working through my lunch
> > > > break.
>
> Hey. What about apologizing to the rest of the world that's propping up
the
> US by funding its debt?
>
> > > What about your circa 10 AM and 11 AM EST posts of late,
> > > you fraud?
>
> It's interesting to reread Abrams v. US, that first introduced to US law
the
> concept of "free trade in ideas" subject to "the competition of the
market."
>
> Holmes and Brandeis, in their dissent, advocated the marketplace of ideas
> and stuck to discussing the principles of the case. It was the majority
> that resorted to character attacks (discussing the principals of the case
> :-), calling the defendants non-citizens, "rebels ... anarchists ...
> Socialist[s]".
But not, "You're defrauding the government." Which I assure you is damned
serious.
> Even if you were a "fraud" (and a charlatan, to turn a phrase), it
wouldn't
> matter one iota if your posting were sound.
>
> > [...] Here's a question for all taxpayers in the group.
> > Are you offended by my occasional posts during work hours? If
> > so, then I'll stop immediately.
>
> I'm offended that they are occasional. I appreciate them and would like
> more.
Most trust fund babies advocate ripping off whomever. They never really had
to work for anyone.
Loose On the Lead wrote:
>
> Mark Freeland wrote:
> > With respect to dealing with funds by mail being a pain, please
> > recognize that I still have a physical certificate for some fund
> > shares I own.
>
> Ah, I see. I myself am a stickler for being able to do everything
> online.
So am I, if there is anything that I intend to do (my certificate is 30
years old, and I don't have any near term plans for doing anything with
those particular shares).
The hardest service to find seems to be online selling of specific
shares. I use Fidelity for that; SiebertNet says that it and E*Trade
provide this service as well, though it isn't clear whether they support
this for funds or only for stocks. What do you use for selling specific
fund shares online? Any problems? (I'm always keeping an eye out for
something better.)
> > You
> > can just drop a note off to Vanguard in the mail;
>
> Yes, but as far as I know, no other fund company or brokerage has
> remotely required that for time out of mind.
Ah ye of little faith (or too much faith in the 21st century :-). Try
Copley Fund. Talking about time out of mind, it has had the same
manager since its inception in 1978. From its prospectus:
"Requests to sell $1,000 or less can be made over the phone or with a
simple letter. However, to protect you and the Fund we will need written
instructions signed by all registered owners, with a signature guarantee
for each owner, if:
"You are selling more than $1,000 worth of shares
" ... [other conditions]"
At least Vanguard doesn't require a signature guarantee.
> [Vanguard brokerage vs. fund side elided]
>
> Then there's the changing objectives of certain funds. Change in
> itself isn't bad, but when a fund goes from useful and interesting to
> vanilla and pointless, I get ticked off. The example that almost
> affected me was Vanguard Gold and Precious Metals, or whatever it's
> called now. I didn't own it, but I planned to someday. It was a gold
> fund with low expenses and some exposure to other precious metals that
> would behave the way I wanted them to. Then the charter was changed so
> that the fund could hold industrial metals. Why? Those metals
> sometimes move opposite precious ones. Vanguard took a perfectly good
> PME fund and made it...I dunno...something for which I would never have
> any use. Someone might point out that the fund is still predominantly
> a PME fund, but the bottom line is that I cannot count on the fund to
> be holding what I want it to. The presence of industrial metals only
> make the fund behave more like the market overall.
I'm not sure that Vanguard is worse than most in this regard, but a
valid criticism nevertheless. Since the original question was regarding
index funds, I suppose it is worth pointing out that Vanguard recently
changed the target index of some of its funds (e.g. Total Stock Market
Index). Probably for the better, but a change that could tick off index
purists.
Thanks for the observations. None of this would make me swear off
Vanguard - I haven't found the perfect place yet - but every issue you
raised is worth keeping in mind when comparing Vanguard with other
places.
--
Mark Freeland
Elle wrote:
>
> "Mark Freeland" <> wrote in message
> > Holmes and Brandeis, in their dissent, advocated the marketplace of
> > ideas and stuck to discussing the principles of the case. It was the
> > majority that resorted to character attacks (discussing the
> > principals of the case :-), calling the defendants non-citizens,
> > "rebels ... anarchists ... Socialist[s]".
>
> But not, "You're defrauding the government." Which I assure you is
> damned serious.
So your position is that comments about a person's character are not
germane to the ideas that a person expresses, unless the remarks allege
something "damned serious". Then the character of the person affects
the validity of those ideas.
> Most trust fund babies advocate ripping off whomever.
Do you have a citation for this?
--
Mark Freeland
"Mark Freeland" <> wrote
snip
> So your position is that comments about a person's character are not
> germane to the ideas that a person expresses, unless the remarks allege
> something "damned serious". Then the character of the person affects
> the validity of those ideas.
Answered previously.
> > Most trust fund babies advocate ripping off whomever.
>
> Do you have a citation for this?
Do you really not know what an opinion is?
Do you really believe you are not advocating ripping off the taxpayer here?
Whatever.
"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:V%c1f.7215$
>
> You're not the first time to
>
> the bigger stuff interrupts your though process
>
Huh?
Why does the C-U Next Tuesday write like the D-P, NoEd?
"Loose On the Lead" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> You'll see that the posts are actually quite irregular. They
> come in bunches, and then I'm silent for long stretches.) That's 10
> posts a month, on average. Not all of those are from work, and some of
> the ones that are were written during lunch, and the others were during
> informal breaks.
Darin, you are NOT obligated to defend your actions.
Why do it?
Mark Freeland wrote:
>
> Loose On the Lead wrote:
> > [...]
> > Yes, but as far as I know, no other fund company or brokerage has
> > remotely required that [redemption by mail] for time out of mind.
>
> Ah ye of little faith (or too much faith in the 21st century :-). Try
> Copley Fund. [...]
I should have kept going - the next fund on my heuristic search was even
better, because it requires signature-guaranteed written requests for
all redemptions, not just ones about $1000 (as is the case with Copley).
Croft-Leomaster Funds. From their prospectus:
"You may redeem shares by sending written request ....
"Redemption requests and changes to ... address or designated bank
account must be guaranteed ...
"You may not redeem shares directly from the Funds by telephone."
Not trying to prove a point here. Just finding it interesting that
there really are these throwbacks; the fact that I can come up with them
without struggling is evidence that they are not as rare as one might
expect.
--
Mark Freeland
Elle wrote:
> "kaspakhine" <> wrote
>
>>Wow!
>
>
> Which is symptomatic of the cultural mindset of which I spoke earlier.
>
> I say, "Wow!" to the failure to build a real flood control system to NOLA;
> respond effectively after Katrina; and to many other failures that tie back
> to a celebration of mediocrity like the above.
>
>
>>Some of the points in this article may be relevant.
>>
>>
>
>
> Let's call a spade a spade: Being online at times is germane to some
> people's work. Profuse, persistent posting to Usenet during work hours is
> recreation. Don't tell me people like Darin have full-time jobs, except in
> the rip-off sense.
>
> If the authors of this article really wanted to serve employees, it would
> focus on the many, many blue collar jobs where people have it far, far worse
> than a jughead like Darin: It's not just that they can't go post at all; or
> that they can't even go online; or that they can't even make a call home to
> coordinate dinner. It's that they don't even have time to go to the bathroom
> when the need hits. That they work in truly, physically perilous jobs; that
> they have no health insurance whatsoever.
>
> Sixteen minutes on ebay is okay during the workday? The authors are
> self-indulgent yuppie putzes.
>
> So there sits Darin: Fat dumb and happy on his very good government salary
> with nice benefits, and thinking, ooh, he works so hard he needs a little
> break on Usenet.
>
> Except it's not a little break. And it's not irregular. It's often. Tax
> dollars should not support this.
>
>
This is all so trivial and has no relation to investment. Who cares if
Darin spends a couple of minutes sending a message to this NG about
every three days? Is this going to bring the world's most prosperous
economy to its knees? Does he have time for a cup of coffee? Can he have
lunch breaks or weekends off or take holidays? Can he chat to his
colleagues about what was on TV last night or how the match went or what
hurricane Katrina is doing? Do you work 100% of the time at your job,
assuming you have one? What does Darin do that is so essential that he
can't pause for a few minutes? Get real! This is human life not the
operation of a machine. What about you making some contribution about
mutual funds and investment instead of this pap!
"Elle" <> wrote
> And son,
Darin, my deepest sympathy.
In article <> wrote:
>The hardest service to find seems to be online selling of specific shares.
Anyone know why so few places have this?
It seems like an utterly trivial addition to add a user supplied comment
field to the order form whose contents would then appear on the confirmation.
Does the IRS require any more that that? Is there any requirement that
the broker do any kind of validation on a specific share order?
Sure, actually keeping track of lots and such would also be nice but
thats a lot more work for the broker and anyone who cares already has
a way of doing that.
--
Jim Prescott - Computing and Networking Group
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Rochester, NY
Abstract phenomena*, as usual, dated, has a response typically directed
from someone 34.5 years of age, 82% and 2/3 more likely a domestic, of
4/5 European, over all male. He is, at least, twice as likely to be a
hep, computer savvy kind-of-guy, as she is not, while either stands
relative to equal prospects at conjugality. A centre/centralist
approach will predominate over the sum of all, to serve to check humors
bellicros to histrionic, as acts of moral ineptitude; such lessor,
though supportive factions include, a left socialistic to right
facistic exegeses; while superceding all aforementioned will be
aggregate liberals, most of all, and though closely contiguous, either
of relativistic or unitarian persuasion. As the glass-bead hypothesis
from German author Herman Hesse endemically is becoming to a collective
psyche, it does so within such auspices certain sanctity ensures from
secularity:-- as such, privacy is increasingly, sequentially, at the
forefront of present issues, and of a right impartiality the majority,
indeed, esteems.
*gvu.gatech.edu/user_surveys
-'It's the women in the front that shout loudest, above all, most
fervently.' -G. Orwell, 1984.
Loose On the Lead wrote:
> > So . . . .