If I want to buy shares in the 500 or so companies on the S&P 500, I'll be looking at commissions of at least $3000, right (unless I have a commissionless trading account, which requires a minimum balance of $500,000 or so)? If I hold those stocks for 20 years without ever rebalancing, that's $150/year. $150 divided by .2% is $75,000. What if I don't happen to have $75,000? Should I not invest in stocks at all until I've raised that much money just so I can save on commissions and fees?
If I buy 10 stocks and hold them for 20 years, I might pay less in commissions and management fees, but I'm much less diversified, right? There is definitely a point at which mutual funds become less cost-effective than buying individual stocks, but I'm pretty certain you need to have at least $1 million dollars lying around in your stock portfolio for that to be true. I've read in the Wall Street Journal that exchange-traded funds are a better deal than index mutual funds if you have $30,000. If you are able to accumulate $30,000 in cash every month, then mutual funds don't make sense. (That implies a disposable income of at least $360,000 a year). At lower amounts, mutual funds are by far the best choice for convenience, cost, and diversification. Are there any flaws in my reasoning here? James
