Tweet
So it looks like conscious investing (ESG = environment, social and corporate governance) directed investing is also coming to bonds, as with new ETF bond offering by Vanguard:
https://investornews.vanguard/new-es...X:VGC:POS01:XX
It's intermediate-short term corporate bonds, mostly from medium-sized 'blend' (i.e. not growth not value) companies. It's marginally higher (maybe 0.02-0.05) expense ratio than I would expect for a similar style subsection of the bond market. Interestingly the news story had about a 50/50 split thumbs up/thumbs down on the Vanguard website. What do people here think (my guess is "meh, do it if you want" will be the consensus answer for plurality of the forum). I am actually a tiny bit on the positive side on this one for a couple reasons: (a) expense ratio difference is minimal, so that's a wash (b) good governance structure = maybe slightly lower risk of default (wild speculation here) (c) general trend along milenial investors to align your investment $ with one's values --> bidding up the price for this ETF?
Conversely a bond is a bond, I don't mind ever so slightly tilting toward corporate with slightly higher yield, especially since the fed appears to be picking up the hat.
On a related note, also worth seeking comments about: what does the group here think about investing in a fund with significant role of women in leadership? Fidelity has recently come out with that fund:
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mu...mary/31641Q664
(127 holdings, top 10 = 18%, quick peek at morningstar shows it's a large-mid cap growth, with a slight tilt toward tech & finance. On that note for sake of account holders I hope Citibank doesn't get pushed into the holdings just because a woman got promoted as the CEO. Not a big fan of that bank, better than WFC or BAC, but bleh).
One of the reasons I ask:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/18/firm...rmance-sp.html
(though I am sure as with a lot of social sciences studies, there could be plenty of holes poked into the conclusions of the studies this article is based on). To me, it's another "factor-based" investing with an unproven track record, unclear guidelines, etc. Not worth the higher expense ratio, but if it floats your boat and/or fits your investment values probably isn't gonna hurt any more than the general large-mid cap growth fund with ESG agenda like DSI (iShares MSCI KLD 400 Social ETF). On second thought, I plugged the fidelity ticker FWOMX into a correlation matrix with VTI and DSI and the correlation (R) was lower than I expected, only 0.73 and 0.79, with the HUGE caveat of a very short track record in a very volatile recent market.
https://investornews.vanguard/new-es...X:VGC:POS01:XX
It's intermediate-short term corporate bonds, mostly from medium-sized 'blend' (i.e. not growth not value) companies. It's marginally higher (maybe 0.02-0.05) expense ratio than I would expect for a similar style subsection of the bond market. Interestingly the news story had about a 50/50 split thumbs up/thumbs down on the Vanguard website. What do people here think (my guess is "meh, do it if you want" will be the consensus answer for plurality of the forum). I am actually a tiny bit on the positive side on this one for a couple reasons: (a) expense ratio difference is minimal, so that's a wash (b) good governance structure = maybe slightly lower risk of default (wild speculation here) (c) general trend along milenial investors to align your investment $ with one's values --> bidding up the price for this ETF?
Conversely a bond is a bond, I don't mind ever so slightly tilting toward corporate with slightly higher yield, especially since the fed appears to be picking up the hat.
On a related note, also worth seeking comments about: what does the group here think about investing in a fund with significant role of women in leadership? Fidelity has recently come out with that fund:
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mu...mary/31641Q664
(127 holdings, top 10 = 18%, quick peek at morningstar shows it's a large-mid cap growth, with a slight tilt toward tech & finance. On that note for sake of account holders I hope Citibank doesn't get pushed into the holdings just because a woman got promoted as the CEO. Not a big fan of that bank, better than WFC or BAC, but bleh).
One of the reasons I ask:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/18/firm...rmance-sp.html
(though I am sure as with a lot of social sciences studies, there could be plenty of holes poked into the conclusions of the studies this article is based on). To me, it's another "factor-based" investing with an unproven track record, unclear guidelines, etc. Not worth the higher expense ratio, but if it floats your boat and/or fits your investment values probably isn't gonna hurt any more than the general large-mid cap growth fund with ESG agenda like DSI (iShares MSCI KLD 400 Social ETF). On second thought, I plugged the fidelity ticker FWOMX into a correlation matrix with VTI and DSI and the correlation (R) was lower than I expected, only 0.73 and 0.79, with the HUGE caveat of a very short track record in a very volatile recent market.
Comment