<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
<channel>
<title>BloggingStocks</title>
<link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com</link>
<description>BloggingStocks</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Should ETFs be in your 401(k)?]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/10/should-etfs-be-in-your-401-k/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/10/should-etfs-be-in-your-401-k/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/10/should-etfs-be-in-your-401-k/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/newspapers/" rel="tag">Newspapers</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/personalfinance/" rel="tag">Personal Finance</a></p>Much to the <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/03/chuck-jaffe-interviews-vanguard-founder-john-bogle/">chagrin of indexing pioneer John Bogle</a>, there is a push for investors to include ETFs in their 401(k) portfolios. <em>The Wall Street Journal </em><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118908996991319363.html?mod=todays_us_the_journal_report">reports</a> (subscription required) that, thankfully, "there is one area where the products are struggling to make headway -- 401(k) retirement plans."<br /><br />It seems likely that, at some point down, the road, you will have an opportunity to invest in ETFs in your 401(k). The main reason not to, and it's a very good reason, is that you are required to pay brokerage commissions on ETF trades. So if you have to pay $10 to buy and $10 to sell, that's the equivalent of a 1% front-load and a 1% back-load if you invest in chunks of $1,000 dollars at a time. It's very likely that, in a 401(k), you are investing in smaller chunks. The size of the <em>de facto</em> load rises as a percentage as the amount of the investment decreases. Invest $100 and you're looking at a 10% front-load, then another 10% when you sell.<br /><br />Proponents of ETFs argue that they're better than traditional mutual funds because they have lower expenses. This is true, but only because most ETFs are index funds.<br /><br />For investing small dollar amounts, which is the case with most regular 401(k) investors (who contribute a little each month), low-cost traditional index mutual funds look like the best bet.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/10/should-etfs-be-in-your-401-k/">Should ETFs be in your 401(k)?</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:56:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118908996991319363.html?mod=todays_us_the_journal_report>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/10/should-etfs-be-in-your-401-k/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/985246/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/10/should-etfs-be-in-your-401-k/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>401(k(</category><category>ETF</category><category>low cost mutual funds</category><category>LowCostMutualFunds</category><category>retirement</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Zac Bissonnette]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:56:00 EST</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
