Focus on Cost, But Don't Be Penny-Wise and Pound Foolish
关注成本,不要贪小便宜吃大亏

Small differences in the rate at which you compound your money can dramatically influence the ultimate amount of wealth you acquire.
你在整合钱的比率上的细微差别会使你最终积攒的财富产生巨大差异。

Consider that an extra 3% return annually can result in 3x as much money over 50 years! ?The power of compound interest is truly astounding.
想想每年额外3%的回报率会使你的钱在50年内翻三倍!复利的强大真是令人惊叹。

The safest way to try and grab an extra few percentage points of return, as in the case of any good business, is cost control.?
就所有良好商业模式而言,尝试并把握住一点儿额外百分比的回报率最安全的方法就是控制成本。

If you are enrolled in a dividend reinvestment program or DRIP that charges $2 for each investment and you are putting away $50 per month, your costs are immediately eating 4% of your principal. This can make sense in certain circumstances. ?
如果你参与一项股息再投资计划(或简称DRIP),每次投资收费$2,你每月要支付$50,你的成本就是资本中马上减少的4%,在某些情况下这样做可行。

For example, my family gifted my younger sister shares of Coca-Cola stock over the years through a special type of account known as a UTMA and it served its purpose beautifully. ?
比如我家人前几年通过一个被称为UTMA的特殊类型的账户赠送给我妹妹可口可乐的股票,并且收益可观。

It is also true that, given her life expectancy, that initial 4% cost, which was inconsequential in terms of actual dollars in the grand scheme of things, will end up being cheaper than the mutual fund expense ratio on a low-cost index fund over the coming decades because it was a one-time, upfront expense, never to be repeated.
而且考虑到她的寿命,最初4%的成本相对于这个长期计划中所得收益已经微不足道了,在未来几十年最终将低于低成本指数基金中共同基金费用比率,因为那个成本只是一次性的前期费用,不会再出现。

The problem is that many investors don't know which expenses are reasonable and which expenses should be avoided.?
问题在于许多投资者不知道哪些花销是合理的,哪些应该避免。

Adding to this problem is that there is a huge divide between the wealthy and the lower and middle classes that cause something that is a waste of money at one level to be a fantastic bargain at another.
更麻烦的是,导致在富人阶层和较低阶层及中产阶级之间产生巨大差异的是,在一个阶层看来是浪费钱的投资可能对另外一个阶层来说就是妥妥的赚到了。

For example, it will often make sense for someone earning $50,000 a year without a large portfolio to forgo an investment advisor altogether, unless there are some behavioral advantages that lead to better outcomes or the convenience is simply worth it, as it is to many people, instead opting for a handful of well-selected, low-cost index funds. ?
比如,一个没有大型证券投资组合,一年就能赚到$50,0 00的人,完全放弃投资顾问还能说得通,除非他有什么行为优势能让他赚到更多的钱或者个人收益值得那样做,否则许多人都会选择一些精选出来的低成本指数基金。

This is true despite the severe methodology flaws that have been quietly introduced into things like S&P 500 index funds in recent decades. ?
事实就是如此,尽管近些年严重的方法论缺陷被悄悄引入了标准普尔500指数基金等投资组合。

(There is this illusion, often held by inexperienced investors, that the S&P 500 is passively managed. It is not. It is actively managed by a committee, only the committee has arranged the rules in a way that seeks to minimize turnover.) ?
(经验不足的投资者常有一种误解,认为标准普尔500是被动式管理。其实不是。它其实被一个委员会管理,只是这个委员会制定了促使交易量最小化的规则。)

This same approach is often idiotic for someone who is rich. ?
对有钱人来说,类似的方法通常显得很蠢。

As people like John Bogle, founder of Vanguard, have pointed out, wealthy investors with a lot of taxable assets who wanted to take an indexing approach would be better off buying the individual stocks, reconstructing the index themselves in a custody account. ?
Vanguard 的创始人John Bogle等人已经指出,有大量应税资产的有钱的投资者如果想采用指数方法,那么买入个股,在一个托管账户中自己重新设定指数,收益会更高。

A wealthy investor can often end up with more cash in his or her pocket, all things considered, paying between 0.25% and 0.75% for a directly owned passive portfolio than he or she would hold an index fund that appears to have a much lower expense ratio of, say, 0.05%.
从各方面考虑,一个有钱的投资者,为直接持有的被动投资组合支付0.25% -0.75%的费用比率通常会比持有貌似费用比率更低,比如说0.05%的指数基金最终赚得更多。

The rich are not dumb. They know this. ?
有钱人也不笨,他们都懂。

It's the non-rich constantly talking about it that are displaying their ignorance of things like the way tax strategies can be employed.
反倒是总在讨论这个的没钱人才暴露了他们对可以的采用的税收策略等方式的无知。

?

One important note:?
重要提示:

History has shown that it is generally not a good idea to sell because of your expectations for macroeconomic conditions, such as the national unemployment rate or the government’s budget deficit, or because you expect the stock market to decline in the short-term. Analyzing businesses and calculating their intrinsic value is relatively simple. ?
历史表明,基于对宏观经济因素的预期就售出通常不是明智之选,比如国家失业率或者政府的预算赤字,或者因为你预计股票市场短期内会下跌。分析企业并计算他们的隐含价值才是相对简单之举。

You have no chance of accurately predicting with any consistency the buy and sell decisions of millions of other investors with different financial situations and analytical abilities. ?
你并不能对数百万其他投资者任何买进和卖出的决定做出准确的一致性预测,他们有着不同的财务状况和分析能力。

To learn more about this topic, read What Is Market Timing? and Market Timing, Valuation, and Systematic Purchases.
想要了解更多关于本话题的内容,可以读一下《什么是市场时机?》、《估值》和《系统购买》。

?

(翻译:菲菲)