VWRL, SWDA or HMWO?

Glen_Clark

ArchBair wrote: »

VWRL 78.2 and SWDA 84.3

VWRL pays dividends in US Dollars (which usually incurs a fee to convert to Sterling for UK investors) and SWDA reinvests them (presumably more efficiently than doing it yourself after charges).
Please do you know if this is taken into account?

ArchBair

Glen_Clark wrote: »

VWRL pays dividends in US Dollars (which usually incurs a fee to convert to Sterling for UK investors) and SWDA reinvests them (presumably more efficiently than doing it yourself after charges).
Please do you know if this is taken into account?

I can't say for sure however usually Trustnet do take these things into account when producing figures, but as I said I can't be sure about this.

MPN

ArchBair wrote: »

Over 5 years the Henderson Global Growth as delivered 125.7 and Witan 103.3, whereas VWRL 78.2 and SWDA 84.3.

HMWO only has figures for the past 3 years but they are very similar, in fact there is only about 1% difference between all three ETF's over the past 3 years..

You can't really compare the performance figures for these funds as they are not really 'like for like' because they invest very differently to the ETF's.

MonroeM

MPN wrote: »

You can't really compare the performance figures for these funds as they are not really 'like for like' because they invest very differently to the ETF's.

I tend to agree, you can't compare world etf's to global funds or IT's.

aroominyork

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

vanguard are more likely to cut the OCF in future, because they'll do so when they can, not just when forced to by competition.

Why do you think that? Is Vanguard a social enterprise or a business?

bostonerimus

aroominyork wrote: »

Why do you think that? Is Vanguard a social enterprise or a business?

Good question.

Vanguard certainly has a mission and a guru - John Bogle. It is critically different from most fund companies and platforms as it is owned by the funds, which in turn are owned by the shareholders, so it is a mutual company owned by it's customers. There are no major shareholders taking profits and dividends out of the company.

Sue58

I thought this thread was about a choice of ETF's not Vanguard in particular?

I personally feel there is very little difference, between the three including their performance figures so just select the ETF that is more to your liking. VWRL is more all world than the other two.

Glen_Clark

bostonerimus wrote: »

There are no major shareholders taking profits and dividends out of the company.

So in theory a mutual will be cheaper for its customers.
If that always worked in practice the Co-op would be cheaper than all the other supermarkets.
But it isn't.

TheTracker

Glen_Clark wrote: »

bostonerimus wrote: »

Good question.

Vanguard certainly has a mission and a guru - John Bogle. It is critically different from most fund companies and platforms as it is owned by the funds, which in turn are owned by the shareholders, so it is a mutual company owned by it's customers. There are no major shareholders taking profits and dividends out of the company.

So in theory a mutual will be cheaper for its customers.
If that always worked in practice the Co-op would be cheaper than all the other supermarkets.
But it isn't.

No, that's not logical at all. It only means that their are no 'external' 'owners' to distribute the profits to. Any profits at Vanguard are returned as lower fees. This fact holds no promise of being cheapest, just as it does not with coop.

Imagine such a company and imagine it performs its operations with stonkingly inefficient administration. It could be very expensive, make a little profit, and hand that little profit back to customers. But it would still be a mutual, and still be expensive.

grey_gym_sock

technically, only vanguard's US-domiciled funds own vanguard itself. but their UK/irish-domiciled funds in practice benefit from the same pricing policy.

i.e. they are trying to retain minimal profits inside vanguard itself, so they cut charges when they can, mainly when assets under management have grown, allowing them to spread fixed costs across a larger pool of funds. if passive management continues to grow in popularity, then they will be able to cut charges more in future.

other managers of passive funds do sometimes match or beat vanguard on cost. at the same time, they often have other funds where the cost seems excessive.

e.g. blackrock(/ishares) have many very cheap passive funds, including SWDA and their other "core" ETFs. but their FTSE 250 ETF (MIDD) is still charging 0.4%, which was once reasonable, but looks pretty expensive now that vanguard have a similar ETF (VMID) charging 0.1% .

Glen mentioned that he doesn't want to sell some ETFs because he'd be paying CGT. some investors who bought MIDD a few years ago in a taxable account must have the same problem.

for this reason, i'd particularly favour using vanguard in a taxable account. in ISA/SIPP, i'm less bothered about it (and there's something to be said for using a variety of managers).