A More Expensive Fund is Better Value?

So, let's kick things off with the first category.

It's sisters before misters.

Cost is the first category.

Shaina, please get us started. >> So, I'm going to do something I don't normally do here, which is I might give the winner to the one that doesn't have the lowest expense ratio.

Let me explain.

So if we do it solely on expense ratio and trading spread, it goes to Vanguard with three basis points, a spread of 1 cent, uh, and over 40 billion in assets under management.

Uh, Vanguard is clearly the cheapest.

However, I am going to give the win to Van X Fallen Angel ETF.

And the reason why is its ETF um expense ratio is 25 basis points similar spread uh 1 cent but the reason I'm giving it to Vanac is the Vanguard fund is a passively managed uh fund plain vanilla and um playing in a the investment grade short duration kind of space.

It should have a very low expense ratio.

I'm more impressed with VANC being able to have a 25 basis point expense ratio and the type of tradability that it has on a fund that's actively managed that's incorporating a fairly differentiated approach to how this fund is managed.

So while it is not necessarily the cheapest of the three, it is still extremely inexpensive for the management you're getting and the style of the fund.

So I don't normally do that but in this case I feel very strongly that it stands out for its ability to provide the type of strategy it is providing at the uh cost that it is uh um providing to the market.

So for me it's an >> great counterintuitive thinking and analysis.

You don't always get what you pay for.

Sometimes you pay for what you