Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dlubarov 552 days ago
Wouldn't fees generally be more significant if holding over a significant time period? Like VOO's 17 bps would mean ~2% over 30 years. Not sure what the weighted average spread of broad index funds looks like, but I would have thought it's far lower.

I guess rebalancing also creates an ongoing spread-based cost, but it seems like that should be far more minor, at least for broad index funds with low-single-digit turnover.

1 comments

There's also time value of money. Paying upfront like this means that money can't be invested (by you), and you lose out on the money plus the return.
Wouldn't that be for fixed-dollar fees? I think here all the costs we're talking about are percentages.

I.e. ignoring taxes, the amount I theoretically expect to exit with should look like

    entry_cost * (return_rate * fee_rate)^T * exit_cost
Where return_rate might look like ~1.1, fee_rate might look like 0.9983 (17 bps), and entry_cost and exit_cost might look like half_spread/price (under some assumptions...).

So I think this comes down to whether T is large enough for that exponentiation to dominate the half-spreads.