4 ms·
The difference between 7% & 6% (1% fees) is in fact a LOT higher if one takes compounding into effect. By Year 40: * >$500K & * ALMOST a quarter of the portf
by vdalal 5y ago
The difference between 7% & 6% (1% fees) is in fact a LOT higher if one takes compounding into effect.
By Year 40:
* >$500K &
* ALMOST a quarter of the portfolio
When I was starting out, someone in my company's 401k forum mentioned this # (at that time the # was almost 40%, fees have gone down a lot since the early 2000's). And I am glad I paid attention.
I try and pass on this wisdom everytime I can. Now, you can too.
Here is a NerdWallet article on this topic:
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/millennial-retirement-fees-one-percent-half-million-savings-impact/ https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/millennial-retirem...
AND
My attempt at recreating their math (TL;DR: It matches, almost):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QTa4XBIUgnLCt_lo6x0nEnIEUZptmIeCfopWpQoUCSQ/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QTa4XBIUgnLCt_lo6x0n...
edit: for formatting
- TuringNYC 5y agoThanks for the great elaboration on my note. FEES KILL! All the discussion on this thread of "oh just go with a mutual fund" is insane to me. Even if funds have dropped in price from 1.5% to 1% to .7%, that is a huge number over the course of your life. The only realistic approach is super-low-cost ETFs, but those arent friendly to use or make a portfolio from. So the WealthFront layer is pretty critical IMHO.