Ok, my numbers are wrong. I was looking at the SavingForCollege 529
plan fee of 0.20% for S&P500 / 0.30% for all other Vanguard index
funds. I then looked at my taxable Vanguard funds average ER and added
0.30% to it to come to a number of roughly 0.55%. However, I forgot
about Admiral shares which have average ERs of 0.10%. Add OH 529 plan
fee to investor class ERs and you roughly get 2005's fees. Add OH 529
plan fee to admiral class ERs and you roughly get the current fees.

So yes, 0.39% is the fee total and is definitely better than the 2nd
lowest fee plans at 0.50 to 0.55%. I myself opened the OH plan early
this year before Fidelity took over management of CA's plan. Nothing
important seem to be missing. When I had a question, fired off an email
and got a response the next day. Why people don't recommend the OH
plan, shrug ... I don't know.

On this note, I was planning to rollover to CA's plan to avoid paying
CA income tax on gains in OH's plan -- however, I've been reading up on
info that says out-of-state 529s may also be CA income tax deferred. I
will have to read up on it more before I decide what to do.


wyu[at]talisys.com wrote:
- quote -

I read those numbers as not including the 529 plan fee but I may be
wrong.

johnrichardson_us[at]yahoo.com wrote:
- quote -

I might be missing something. I was looking at the OH prospectus last
night, it indicated that the "aggressive" package of Vanguard funds has
a .39% fee total. .25% total if only the S&P500 Vanguard fund is used.
(As you said, most other similar 529s are around .55% for the same
funds, with Nevada at .50% - Vanguard lowered it recently.)

Unless I'm reading the prospectus incorrectly, I'm wondering why there
could be a .10+ basis point discrepancy between very similar choices.
What's the problem with Ohio?



On Dec 11, 1:49 pm, w...[at]talisys.com wrote:
- quote -

NH (and MA too?) are also at .50% for Fidelity index funds.


- quote -

It's all in the breakout. Some of the plans give a single final number
while others break out 529 expenses and mutual fund expenses. From what
I can see, OH, IA, UT and NY all do 0.55% total for Vanguard index
funds. The choices for OH/UT/NY look pretty much the same to me.

The savingsforcollege site doesn't have the latest numbers -- you have
to go to all the specific plan sites to get them. The plan with the
lowest fees seem to be CA's plan offering Fidelity index funds at 0.50%
total -- but again, without updated numbers on a single site, you will
have to visit all the candidates individually.

johnrichardson_us[at]yahoo.com wrote:
- quote -

I'm looking at 529 plans. I'll be indexing and don't get a state tax
deduction, so I'm primarily concerned with plan costs. What surprises
me is that when rating low cost plans, magazines, books and web sites
(ie Kiplinger's, http://www.savingforcollege.com) don't rate the lowest
costs plans as the best. For instance, why isn't Ohio's Vanguard plan
(expenses around .25-.39) better than the Iowa plan or the Nevada plan
(with expenses around .5)? I'm come up with four theories:

1) The funds or age brackets - Funds in most Vanguard plans seem
similar, but perhaps there is something that I'm missing? Or perhaps
the more expensive plans offer more flexibility (more funds or
age-based options) that I just wouldn't use?

2) Convenience - it may be more difficult to use the cheaper funds.
But from the outside, it doesn't seem that way to me. They all seem to
have website-based administration and support EFTs. Maybe the cheaper
ones don't have good phone support?

3) State negotiations - some states just don't take as much in fees, or
did a better job in negotiating a 529 contract?

4) The solvency of the state - This is the most troubling to me. We
know that investors don't directly own shares in a fund, instead they
own part of the trust that gives a return based on the choice of
investments. Is there a chance that a financially troubled state could
decide to go into default on loans, then go into receivership and have
the 529 trust fund liquidated? Given the risk, these states would need
lower costs to attract investors.