alt Hacker NewsFair point. My thought is they are clearly spending money on tons of people they wouldn't have to if they were strictly passive. Presumably, if they didn't, the fees would be lower than they are now.
Replies
ta9000 • today at 4:48 AM
3 bps instead of 4? That’s a savings of… $100 on a million annually.
➕ show 1 reply
SpicyLemonZest • today at 5:22 AM
Why should we presume that? It seems equally likely that the fees would have to be higher if not supported by profitable cross-sales.
➕ show 1 reply
Isn't it equally likely the opposite - your comment presumes that Vanguard is using money from passive to prop up active, whereas it could also be that money from active is already being used to lower fees on passive?