Re:Vanguard Is Growing Faster Than Everybody Else Combined
by subroutine on Wednesday April 19, 2017 @05:15AM
(#14146476)
Pardon my ignorance, but how would NYT directly benefit from a boost in Vanguard popularity? Say this article somehow elicits a bevy of people/companies to invest in Vanguard, raising their mutual fund from $4.2 to a $4.5 trillion. Given that NYT stake in this fund remains constant, it's not clear to me how this helps NYT employees - unless $4.5 trillion is the tipping-point for market manipulation (but isn't this fund simply tracking major indexes?). Or would the biggest benefit come in the form of even lower fund fees (<0.1%)?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Vanguard Is Growing Faster Than Everybody Else Combined
by psyc on Wednesday April 19, 2017 @05:31AM
(#14146538)
It wouldn't. It's utterly insignificant that Vanguard hosts their 401Ks. That's like saying, "Full Disclosure: Many NYT employees have accounts at BOA!"
Re:Vanguard Is Growing Faster Than Everybody Else Combined
by jessriedel on Wednesday April 19, 2017 @03:06PM
(#14150748)
Vanguard gives discounts to large institutions. If a NY Times story helps Vanguard, Vanguard could cut their rate a bit.
I don't think this is likely, but I think it's clearly possible, and noting this potential conflict of interest seems prudent. This is what the disclosure is for.
Re:Vanguard Is Growing Faster Than Everybody Else Combined
by cJ0th on Wednesday April 19, 2017 @05:30AM
(#14146534)
> Pardon my ignorance, but how would NYT directly benefit from a boost in Vanguard popularity?
I never said they would. I could imagine they got paid for this article but if I said so I would go out on a limb as I don't know whether that's the case.
All I am really saying is this:
> What I miss is a critical examination of the situation.
----
edit:
I think this is a more balanced article on Vanguard: http://fortune.com/vanguard-mutual-funds-investment/
(It's from December 2016, though)