A Great Example Of Why “Better Returns” Are Often Not All They’re Cracked Up To Be

In a recent post about starting a savings account for a newborn, Jeremy Joslin left the following comment:

I’m doing this for a best friend’s newborn. Problem is that I’m putting the money into a custodial account at my brokerage. I do $20/month but they take $4 per trade. Perhaps the commission isn’t worth the extra rate of return?

My gut reaction is that even over eighteen years, it’s not worth it.

If you put $20 a week into an HSBC Direct savings account, returning a 5.05% APY, after eighteen years you would have $29,783.83 in the account. That’s not bad, considering your actual investment is $18,720 – your positive return is $11,063.83.

On the other hand, if you put $20 a week into your brokerage and they take $4 of that in a trade, you’re effectively investing $16 a week and paying $4 to the brokerage. In order to get an amount equal to that savings account, you have to get a 7.8% return on your investment. Now, this is quite possible to do in a brokerage – in fact, I’d say that the possibility is a bit better than 50/50, but you have an awfully high expectation there.

Assuming that you’re planning on giving the child cash that isn’t strictly earmarked for education (if you are, the best choice is a 529 plan handled by a different broker), your best bet is to look at an index fund that is very low in fees. I would take that $20 a week and put it in a savings account until it reached $3,000, then invest it in an index fund at Vanguard (directly through vanguard.com) and put that $20 a week directly into Vanguard rather than the brokerage. There’d be no fee at all and you can get very nice returns out of Vanguard (10-12% at the very least). This would mean amounts closer to $40-50K for that kid when he/she reaches his/her eighteenth birthday.

Even though Jeremy is doing okay over the long haul with the brokerage, the fee is awfully high for that. The better approach is to look for a better brokerage, or to at least change the investing plan (save up the cash in a savings account and do a trade only once a year or so instead of weekly trades). That way, Jeremy and that beautiful baby won’t be nickel and dimed out of a lot of potential gains.

The take-home message? Fees can eat a lot of your investment return so put in the effort to look for lower-fee investment opportunities or at least choose a strategy that minimizes the fees (like minimizing your trades).

If you enjoyed reading this, sign up for free updates!

Loading Disqus Comments ...
Loading Facebook Comments ...
  1. Jim Lippard says:

    $4/trade is not bad for an individual stock investment–in fact, it’s quite good. But it’s not good for an automated monthly investment of a small amount of money. That should either go into a money market sweep account which you use less frequently for stock trades, into savings, or into automatic no-load mutual fund investment (and again, you should be looking for low management fees–e.g., my S&P index fund expense ratio is 0.19%, and if I had $100,000 for an S&P index fund, I could get an expense ratio of 0.09%).

  2. That is definitely not worth it since the investment is only $20 a month and the $4 fee is fixed. I would go with the index fund as well if I were him, the most passive stock investment available with low fees. It’s not worth the potentially higher returns, which isn’t guaranteed, while the $4/trade cost is guaranteed.

    Personally I’m invested in Etrade’s SP500 index fund, to my knowledge it has the lowest expenses of them all.

  3. Vin says:

    Can you even open a custodial account with major banks that offer good interest rates? Most offer like less than 2% for custodial accounts.
    Opening it on your own name on behalf of your minor will lead you to pay higher rates on taxable income.
    Am I correct with this, or wrong?

  4. Colin says:

    Can you explain how you will only need 7.8% return to offset the cost, when 20% of your investment is lost right off the bat? It seems to me that you would need a return of greater than 25% to justify using the brokerage account.

  5. ben says:

    Why not put the 20 a month in a savings account and then every 3 months (or 6 or 12) put combined sum into the custodial account? If it really is for the long term, (ie 10-20 years) then dollar cost averaging isn’t an issue. Also the deposit into the savings account can be automatic so force savings benefit is also fulfilled.

  6. Toby says:

    A good guideline for considering brokerage fees (what I would call frictional costs) is to keep them below 1-2% of the principal being invested. 20% is outrageous! To meet the 2% guideline, he’d have to invest $200 at a time with $4 commissions.

    This is why so many financial writers recommend against investing in individual stocks when you only have a small amount of capital. The brokerage fees really kill your returns when you are dropping $100 here and $100 there.

    I prefer to keep my fees to fractions of a percent. When your trades fall into the $5-$10k range, your frictional costs grow very small.

    It takes patience to grow a sizable bank roll. Kick back, send the money to an index fund regularly, study investing principles, run a virtual portfolio, etc. while you build that bankroll. You’ll be much better prepared to invest them money.

  7. Dominic says:

    The commenter mentioned that he was doing $20/month, whereas you use $20/week in your example.

  8. Jon says:

    I like the Vanguard idea because there are no transaction fees and investing in an index fund requires a lot less research than individual stocks.

    That said, for those who do want individual stocks there are at least two decent options. First, with Sharebuilder, you simply queue a few months’ worth of contributions, letting them earn 4% in Sharebuilder’s money market. That way you end up buying in larger amounts so the transaction fee is not too bad (20% is ridiculous, 5% less so).

    Second, open an account at Zecco instead. There are no commissions. However, I’m not sure if they allow purchase of fractional shares, so with $20 you’d be limited in what stocks you can buy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Become a subscriber of The Simple Dollar and get a free copy of Trent's e-book today plus exclusive updates.