Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

progree

(11,463 posts)
11. This is pure nonsense (broad-brushing). My 401(k) was mostly invested in Vanguard index funds
Sun Apr 28, 2013, 09:53 PM
Apr 2013

where the expense ratio is about 0.10%. And where the employer paid the 401k management fees and provided a match.

========================================================
The "it ate up 2/3" is based on a theoretical calculation like so:

Assume that without expenses, a dollar invested 50 years ago would have gained 7%/year:

Ergo, that dollar would have grown without expenses to 1.07^50 = $29.457 in 50 years. (the "^" is exponentiation)

With 2%/year expenses, the after-expense growth rate would be 5%/year ,

so the dollar would have grown with expenses to 1.05^50 = $11.467 in 50 years.

So yes, in this scenario, 29.457 - 11.467 = 17.990 is lost to expenses, which is 17.990/29.457 = 61% or very roughly about 2/3.

===========================================================

But I very much doubt that most 401ks have anywhere near 2%/year expenses.

And, also, if you do a more realistic calculation, where the worker contributes a certain amount every year, the percentage lost due to expenses is much less than looking at a lump sum made at the beginning of the period. (What worker makes his/her entire lifetime contribution to a 401k all in one year -- his first year on the job?) And even that overstates the problem, in that, due to inflation, workers contribute more in their later years than in the earliest years.

Also the percentage lost to expenses is much less if you look at a shorter period like 20 or 30 years.

And it doesn't include an employer's match to an employee's contribution.

Xcel Energy's plan: 25 choices http://www.myplaniq.com/LTISystem/f401k_view.action?ID=1049

Click on the "Show All Funds and Details" gray button below the bottom right of the table.

Then when the new page appears, Click on the "Show More Fund Parameters & Ratings" blue button just above the table to see the Expense ratios. The index funds are around 0.10% expense ratio. The target date retirement funds are all 0.16% to 0.19%.

If your employer is only offering you choices that all involve 0.20% or higher expense ratio, you need to get your coworkers together, with pitchforks, and raise holy hell, because yes, you are getting screwed. Not by Wall Street but by your employer.

Not sure I understand what they are saying BlueStreak Apr 2013 #1
You're missing a lot of the fine print Warpy Apr 2013 #4
Are you saying that the load the Morningstar (and others) report is not accurate? BlueStreak Apr 2013 #6
I wouldn't call it hogwash, but it's misleading at best Major Nikon Apr 2013 #17
They would have been a lot more credible if they had gone with ... BlueStreak Apr 2013 #19
Agreed. And if a 401k only offers only high-fee funds and has a high management fee progree Apr 2013 #22
Agreed. I have been in 4 different employer 401Ks BlueStreak Apr 2013 #24
Yep, all the hot-shot investors joked about my IRA... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #26
It wouldn't surprise me if some employers have so trapped their employees Major Nikon Apr 2013 #23
A friend of mine had his 401K invested in a "semi-agressive" portfolio CountAllVotes Apr 2013 #27
I've always looked at stocks as a long term investment Major Nikon Apr 2013 #31
This was a good, and scary, piece Lifelong Protester Apr 2013 #2
Excerpt here: NYC_SKP Apr 2013 #3
I Don't Know What Ms Martens Meant to Say, On the Road Apr 2013 #9
I have mixed emotions about this BlueStreak Apr 2013 #14
I Agree That the Concern is Valid On the Road Apr 2013 #25
In the companies where I have worked, 95% of CEO compensation BlueStreak Apr 2013 #28
VFIAX - VANGUARD = member-owned. And Vgd S&P 500 fund has grown 42-fold since 1976 inception progree Apr 2013 #29
Sorry, but I have a problem with this article... brooklynite Apr 2013 #5
Manage your own investment Dan de Lyons Apr 2013 #7
It is possible, but most people don't do better BlueStreak Apr 2013 #8
Some how not all all unbelievable CountAllVotes Apr 2013 #10
This is pure nonsense (broad-brushing). My 401(k) was mostly invested in Vanguard index funds progree Apr 2013 #11
Bogle recommends investing in index funds nt No Vested Interest Apr 2013 #13
I am a grateful Boglehead nt progree Apr 2013 #16
i invest in ebayables. wall street is a casino. only the HOUSE WINS. pansypoo53219 Apr 2013 #12
Not a bad idea for a chunk of your portfolio to be in such barterable things. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #15
I have been posting on this issue for ages. JDPriestly Apr 2013 #18
I'm not sure I'm following much of any of this progree Apr 2013 #21
Why does the tax deferral look so good on paper? JDPriestly Apr 2013 #30
Tax deferral works even when tax rates are the same in retirement progree Apr 2013 #32
I agree that rental properties are not an alternative. JDPriestly Apr 2013 #34
Actually, I deployed some new money in REIT (Real Estate Investment Trusts) progree Apr 2013 #35
Deleted. I meant this to be in reply to #18. Sorry about that. nt progree Apr 2013 #20
Saving for later. Thanks for posting. n/t Laelth Apr 2013 #33
I hope you trash it for the garbage that it is nt progree Apr 2013 #36
I appreciate your insight on this subject. Laelth Apr 2013 #37
You're welcome. Please read #11 where the "2/3" figure came from. It is a hypothetical. progree Apr 2013 #38
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Occupy Underground»PBS Drops Another Bombshe...»Reply #11