What are Vanguard's Admiral Shares?
"Vanguard's Admiral shares are like regular (""investor"") shares in their funds, only they charge lower expense ratios. They have higher investment minimums, though. (For instance, the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund has a minimum of $3,000 and an expense ratio of .18% for the Investor Shares class, but a minimum of $10,000 and an expense ratio of .07% for Admiral Shares). If you've bought a bunch of investor shares and now meet the (recently-reduced) minimum for Admiral shares, or if you have some and buy some more investor shares in the future and meet the minimums, you will qualify for a free, no-tax-impact conversion to the Admiral Shares and save yourself some money. For more information, see the Vanguard article on their recent changes to Admiral Shares minimums. Vanguard also offers institutional-class shares with even lower expense ratios than that (with a minimum of $5 million, .06% expense ratios on the same fund). A lot of the costs of operating a fund are per-individual, so they don't need to charge you extra fees for putting in more money after a certain point. They'd rather be competitive and offer it at cost. Vanguard's funds typically have very low expense ratios to begin with. (The investor shares I've been using as an example are advertised as ""84% lower than the average expense ratio of funds with similar holdings"".) In fact, Vanguard's whole reason for existing is the premise (stated in founder John C Bogle's undergraduate thesis at Princeton) that individuals can generally get better returns by investing in a cheap fund that tracks an index than by investing in mutual funds that try to pick stocks and beat the index and charge you a steep markup. The average real return of the stock market is supposedly something like 4%; even a small-looking percentage like 1% can eat a big portion of that. Over the course of 40 years waiting for retirement, saving 1% on expenses could leave you with something like 50% more money when you've retired. If you are interested in the lower expense ratios of the Admiral share classes but cannot meet the minimums, note that funds which are available as ETFs can be traded from Vanguard brokerage accounts commission-free and typically charge the same expense ratios as the Admiral shares without any minimums (but you need to trade them as individual shares, and this is less convenient than moving them around in specific dollar amounts)."
https://personal.vanguard.com/pub/Pdf/sai059.pdf?2210128720  your colleague's right.  *The Agreement provides that the Funds will not contribute to Vanguard’s capitalization or pay for corporate management, administrative, and distribution services provided by Vanguard. However, each Fund will bear its own direct expenses, such as legal, auditing, and custodial fees. In addition, the Agreement further provides that the Funds’ direct expenses will be offset, in whole or in part, by a reimbursement from Vanguard for (1) the Funds’ contributions to the cost of operating the underlying Vanguard funds in which the Funds invest and (2) certain savings in administrative and marketing costs that Vanguard expects to derive from the Funds’ operations.* **The Funds expect that the reimbursements should be sufficient to offset most or all of the direct expenses incurred by each Fund.** *Therefore, the Funds are expected to operate at a very low—or zero—direct expense ratio. Of course, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. Although the Funds are not expected to incur any net expenses directly, the Funds’ shareholders indirectly bear the expenses of the underlying Vanguard funds.*  It's basically a gamble... Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund.  An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments.  The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios.  Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities.  Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs.  Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund.  For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment).  Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER).  Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number.  For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral).  See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page.  Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF.  Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds.  Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free.  Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs.  Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general. "Yes, the ""based on"" claim appears to be true – but the Nobel laureate did not personally design that specific investment portfolio ;-) It looks like the Gone Fishin' Portfolio is made up of a selection of low-fee stock and bond index funds, diversified by geography and market-capitalization, and regularly rebalanced.  Excerpt from another article, dated 2003: The Gone Fishin’ Portfolio  [circa 2003] Vanguard Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX) – 15%   Vanguard Small-Cap Index (NAESX) – 15%   Vanguard European Stock Index (VEURX) – 10%   Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX) – 10%   Vanguard Emerging Markets Index (VEIEX) – 10%   Vanguard Short-term Bond Index (VFSTX) – 10%   Vanguard High-Yield Corporates Fund (VWEHX) – 10%   Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities Fund (VIPSX) – 10%   Vanguard REIT Index (VGSIX) – 5%   Vanguard Precious Metals Fund (VGPMX) – 5%   That does appear to me to be an example of a portfolio based on Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), ""which tries to maximize portfolio expected return for a given amount of portfolio risk"" (per Wikipedia).  MPT was introduced by Harry Markowitz, who did go on to share the 1990 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.  (Note: That is the economics equivalent of the original Nobel Prize.) You'll find more information at NobelPrize.org - The Prize in Economics 1990 - Press Release. Finally, for what it's worth, it isn't rocket science to build a similar portfolio.  While I don't want to knock the Gone Fishin' Portfolio (I like most of its parts), there are many similar portfolios out there based on the same concepts.  For instance, I'm reminded of a similar (though simpler) portfolio called the Couch Potato Portfolio, made popular by MoneySense magazine up here in Canada. p.s. This other question about asset allocation is related and informative." Yes, each of Vanguard's mutual funds looks only at its own shares when deciding to upgrade/downgrade the shares to/from Admiral status. To the best of my knowledge, if you hold a fund in an IRA as well as a separate investment,  the shares are not totaled in deciding whether or not the shares are accorded Admiral shares status; each account is considered separately.  Also, for many funds, the minimum investment value is not $10K but is much larger (used to be $100K a long time ago, but recently the rules have been relaxed somewhat). Vanguard has a lot of mutual fund offerings.  (I have an account there.)  Within the members' section they give indications of the level of risk/reward for each fund. Ordinary investors who own mutual funds (like vanguard or whatever) are subject to HFT scalping.  Mutual funds, pensions, etc are all operating in the markets with HFTs who are front running them for a tiny spread profit.  Million of ordinary investors are invested in those funds and therefore are getting charged this spread by the HFTs. An interesting read.  As of lately, my office has been getting calls from Hartford, Fidelity, Oppenheimer, First Trust, and now Prudential regarding their ETFs.  A lot of them just received their 3 year number and the companies are trying to get inflows into them.  Prudential's has not launched yet, but is expecting to drop end of summer or early fall.  Fidelity is currently the only major competitor in the space.  They have a slightly lower internal cost compared to Vanguard and their position are almost identical to the iShares ETFs offered by Black Rock.  You can think of Black Rock as Bounty brand paper towels while Fidelity is more like Kirkland Signature.  Essentially the same thing with a slight savings on price.  One thing to look out for is the very thin trading volume on some of these new ETFs.  Oppenheimer and Hartford have very thin levels of volume which makes owning them feel like a game of old maid.  You don't want to be stuck holding the bag if something happens in the sector ETF that was purchased.  Always make sure there is a market for some of these ETFs before you buy it.  Fidelity has overcome some of these volume problems... but some of the ETFs are still a little thin.  Just stick with Vanguard for the thinly traded sectors and consider Fidelity if you want to shave a few bps on internal cost.    This has just been my personal observation of the industry. "A little terminology: Grant: you get a ""gift"" with strings attached. ""Grant"" refers to the plan (legal contract) under which you get the stock options. Vesting: these are the strings attached to the grant. As long as you're employed by the company, your options will vest every quarter, proportionally. You'll become an owner of 4687 or 4688 options every quarter. Each such vest event means you'd be getting an opportunity to buy the corresponding amount of stocks at the strike price (and not the current market price which may be higher). Buying is called exercising. Exercising a nonqualified option is a taxable event, and you'll be taxed on the value of the ""gift"" you got. The value is determined by the difference between the strike price (the price at which you have the option to buy the stock) and the actual fair market value of the stock at the time of vest (based on valuations). Options that are vested are yours (depending on the grant contract, read it carefully, leaving the company may lead to forfeiture). Options that are not vested will disappear once you leave the company. Exercised options become stocks, and are yours. Qualified vs Nonqualifed - refers to the tax treatment. Nonqualified options don't have any special treatment, qualified do. 3.02M stocks issued refers to the value of the options. Consider the total valuation of the company being $302M. With $302M value and 3.02M stocks issued, each stock is worth ~$100. Now, in a year, a new investor comes in, and another 3.02M stocks are issued (if, for example, the new investor wants a 50% stake). In this case, there will be 6.04M stocks issued, for 302M value - each stock is worth $50 now. That is called dilution. Your grant is in nominal options, so in case of dilution, the value of your options will go down. Additional points: If the company is not yet public, selling the stocks may be difficult, and you may own pieces of paper that no-one else wants to buy. You will still pay taxes based on the valuations and you may end up paying for these pieces of paper out of your own pocket. In California, it is illegal to not pay salary to regular employees. Unless you're a senior executive of the company (which I doubt), you should be paid at least $9/hour per the CA minimum wages law."