Fidelity® ZERO International Index FZILX
Will FZILX outperform in future?
Get our overall rating based on a fundamental assessment of the pillars below.
The Process Pillar is our assessment of how sensible, clearly defined, and repeatable FZILX’s performance objective and investment process is for both security selection and portfolio construction.
The People Pillar is our evaluation of the FZILX management team’s experience and ability. We find that high-quality management teams deliver superior performance relative to their benchmarks and/or peers.
The Parent Pillar is our rating of FZILX’s parent organization’s priorities and whether they’re in line with investors’ interests.
The number of funds that receive a Morningstar Analyst Rating is limited by the size of the Morningstar analyst team. To expand the number of funds we cover, we have developed a machine-learning model that uses the decision-making processes of our analysts, their past ratings decisions, and the data used to support those decisions. The machine-learning model is then applied to the “uncovered” fund universe to create the Morningstar Quantitative Rating (denoted on this page by a ), which is analogous to the rating a Morningstar analyst might assign to the fund if an analyst covered the fund. These quantitative rating predictions make up what we call the Morningstar Quantitative Rating™ for funds. Click here for more on how to use these ratings.
Best Total Stock Market Index Funds
Comparing total stock market index funds can be like trying to distinguish between snowflakes. You’ve been told they are all unique, but they sure do look a lot alike. Ultimately, the most important factor is fees: The lower the fees, the higher the returns, at least for the most part. But above and beyond fees, there are several factors we considered in making our selections.
We considered how each fund sought to mirror the total stock market in the U.S. We excluded those funds that didn’t track the majority of U.S. equities, such as S&P 500 index funds. While the performance of these funds is highly correlated with total market funds, they exclude small and mid-cap stocks. As such, they can’t fairly be described as total market funds.
With one exception, the funds in our list track the Russell 3000 Index, the Dow Jones U.S. Total Market Index or the CRSP US Total Market Index. In our view, each of these is a reasonable approach to capturing the U.S. equities market.
We also included Fidelity’s ZERO fund, which uses a proprietary Fidelity index. It’s the first fund we’ve found that doesn’t charge an expense ratio. Whether it will outperform the other funds in our list over the long-term is still unknown given is short tenure.
Finally, we considered a fund’s minimum investment and most recent 12-month yield. While there was some variance among the funds that made our list, they all fell within a narrow range.
Fidelity ZERO International Index Fund
|Category||Intl Multi-Cap Core|
|Fund Inception||August 2, 2018|
The Fund seeks to provide investment results that correspond to the total return of foreign developed and emerging stock markets. It invests in securities included in the Fidelity Global ex US Index, a float-adjusted market cap-weighted index designed to reflect the performance of non-U.S. large- and mid-cap stocks.
|Max. redemption fee||N/A|
|Total expense ratio||0%|
|Fund Return||Category1||Index (S&P 500)||% rank in category||Quintile rank|
- 1International Multi-Cap Core
- 23, 5 and 10 Year Returns are Annualized
This browser is no longer supported at MarketWatch. For the best MarketWatch.com experience, please update to a modern browser.
What’s the Catch in Fidelity’s Zero-Fee Mutual Funds?
Fidelity launched four new zero-fee index mutual funds in 2019:
- Fidelity ZERO Total Market Index Fund (FZROX)
- Fidelity ZERO Large Cap Index Fund (FNILX)
- Fidelity ZERO Extended Market Index Fund (FZIPX)
- Fidelity ZERO International Index Fund (FZILX)
Since most investors do not believe Wall Street provides anything that is truly free, we are writing this article to help you determine if the word “free” is just another Wall Street marketing gimmick.
Want to learn more? Contact GlidePath Wealth Management to talk to a retirement planner.
The only catch we can find is that investors are required to hold these mutual fund investments in a Fidelity brokerage account, which isn’t that big of a deal, especially if you are already a Fidelity client.
Fidelity may be using these zero-fee mutual funds as loss leaders to take clients away from its competitors. Once you have established an account Fidelity can use its substantial marketing resources to sell investments that produce substantial amounts of revenue for Fidelity.
The key for Fidelity is getting its foot in the door so it can sell revenue-producing investment products. This is the same reason some advisors offer free planning services. The free services are designed to establish relationships – making money comes later.
Trading costs are also not the catch. Fidelity provides zero-cost trading, along with Schwab, E-Trade and TD Ameritrade.
A minor catch is that some comparable Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) charge very low fees, for example, less than 10 basis points (100 basis points equals 1%)). Taxable accounts may find that the tax efficiency of ETFs is worth a nominal 10 basis point fee.
A couple of ETF providers are trying to compete by offering zero-fee ETF indexes, but they’ve had limited success so far. SoFi’s (Social Finance Inc.) version of the S&P 500 index ETF, SoFi Select 500, which waived the annual fee, has attracted a little more than $55 million in assets. Salt Financial’s low-volatility equity ETF, Salt Low truBeta U.S. Market, which used the novel approach of offering a “negative” fee — it rebates money to shareholders who invest — until its fund reaches $100 million in assets (the level at which many brokerage platforms are willing to give shelf space to a fund). But it has only taken in $7.7 million, less than Salt’s existing ETF, which offers no such incentive. Marketing and branding clearly matter.
Another nuance is that Fidelity has created its own indexes, so performance will differ from established indexes, but Fidelity’s definitions are solid and defensible.
How does Fidelity make money?
Fidelity makes money the same way other fund families earn extra returns, namely based on securities lending and advertising (branding). The profit from securities lending is mostly passed back to fund holders. Fidelity gets paid for arranging the loans and is entitled to this fee.
As noted, sometimes the goal isn’t solely to make money in the short-run. Fidelity can afford to build relationships with valuable younger investors, who may ultimately invest in other, more lucrative Fidelity funds and products. Nobel economics laureate Richard Thaler and his co-author Cass Sunstein write in Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness about how inertia keeps most people from acting. So, once these young investors are in the Fidelity system, it’s likely that they’ll remain.
Investment management and trading fees continue to decline, which is good for investors. To state the obvious, all things being equal, investors should choose the lowest cost product. That’s because every dollar of expense is one less dollar that they will have for their future use.
You cannot predict future performance, but you can predict future expense ratios that reduce your net investment returns.
Index funds, both mutual funds and ETFs, are pretty equal one to the other, so zero fees are attractive. Don’t be surprised if competitors introduce their versions of zero-fee products.
Disclosure: GlidePath Wealth Management’s portfolios invest in two of the Fidelity Zero Fee mutual funds.
Funds fidelity zero
FZROX vs. VTI: Does Fidelity's 0% Fee Total Market Fund Beat Vanguard?
When it comes to constructing a portfolio, the core of it should be, well, boring! By "boring", I mean broadly diversified, plain vanilla and ultra-low cost. If you're shopping in the ETF marketplace, it shouldn't be too difficult to find several that fit the bill. Today, there are around 70 different ETFs that charge 0.05% or less annually to own, so investors today have plenty of options that fit the "ultra-low cost" definition.
For a pure core portfolio holding, it's tough to find a fund that works better than the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI). It holds nearly 4,000 U.S. stocks across large-, mid- and small-caps and comes with a scant 0.03% expense ratio. That's right. You'll pay just $3 a year per every $10,000 invested for full exposure to the entire U.S. stock market.
Note: Interested in getting periodic e-mail notifications when articles are published here? Drop your e-mail in the box below!
For a number of reasons, I choose ETFs over mutual funds for building out your portfolio, but there is still one mutual fund out there that I think may be worthy of consideration - the Fidelity ZERO Total Market Index Fund (FZROX).
FZROX vs. VTI
The Fidelity vs. Vanguard battle has been raging for years. There companies were the two fund heavyweights for a long time before the ETF boom happened and names, such as BlackRock and State Street, emerged as major issuers. Vanguard is still a leader in both mutual funds and ETFs. Fidelity is still a major player on the fund side, but got a late start into ETFs. The company has yet to launch an S&P 500 or total stock market ETF, but it does offer a growing lineup of sector, thematic and smart beta ETFs that have grown it to the 14th largest ETF issuer with just over $30 billion in assets.
Fidelity launched the ZERO lineup of funds back in late 2018. In addition to FZROX, there are the Fidelity ZERO Extended Market Index Fund (FZIPX), the Fidelity ZERO Large Cap Index Fund (FNILX) and the Fidelity ZERO International Index Fund (FZILX). Collectively, the foursome has more than $20 billion in assets under management with FZROX accounting for more than half.
Your answer as to why Fidelity would launch mutual funds and take zero fees on them is a business one. It's using the ZERO funds as loss leaders to get customers in the door and then cross-sell them other products and services, such as other funds and ETFs or advisory services.
While ETFs generally win the battle over mutual funds, the FZROX vs. VTI debate is a legitimate one. In a vacuum, both would be great core portfolio holdings, but there are other factors to consider when choosing between them, one in particular that could be a dealbreaker for Fidelity.
Let's run down the differences between the two.
VTI tracks the CRSP US Total Market Index, while FZROX benchmarks to the Fidelity U.S. Total Investable Market Index. While we could sit here and nitpick minor details, these indexes are, for all intents and purposes, essentially the same. The only noticeable difference is that FZROX holds the top 3,000 names by market cap, whereas VTI holds around 4,000. Those bottom 1,000 names are such a small part of the index that they're virtually inconsequential.
There's effectively no difference between the two and their correlations should be near 100%. The difference in year-to-date performance through September 20th is 0.01%.
As mentioned, VTI charges 0.03%, while FZROX charges nothing. While that would seemingly give the win to FZROX (and it is indeed cheaper, of course), 3 basis points is almost splitting hairs.
When judging between two funds, expense ratios and trading fees are the two most important factors I consider. The primary reason is that those are the numbers you can control. You have no control over whether the stock markets gains 30% or falls 20% in any given year, but you can control how much you pay for it. If one fund charges 0.30% annually and another charges 0.60%, in a vacuum, I'd choose the 0.30% fund because why not keep that extra 0.30% in your pocket instead of handing it over to the fund company? Again, this is in a vacuum and there are other things to consider, but you get the idea.
I think the difference in expense ratios needs to be about 15 basis points or more before it really swings the pendulum for similar strategies. 3 basis points is a pretty negligible difference for a total stock market fund, but Fidelity does get the slight advantage.
Here's one of the big differences between mutual funds and ETFs.
ETFs are traded throughout the day and, in the case of VTI, traded quite frequently. That gives investors the ability to transact on their portfolios as conditions change and, since spreads on heavily-traded securities are so tight, there's almost no cost to trading (especially now since the major platforms, such as Vanguard, have enacted commission-free trading on most ETFs).
Mutual funds are priced only once at the end of the trading day (with a few exceptions) and can be transacted only once a day - at that day's closing price. Therefore, mutual fund investors never really know what price they're trading at and are kind of stuck if something happens in the middle of a trading day.
If you're talking about a long-term core holding in your portfolio, the ability to trade intraday may not be a big deal, but the mutual fund's inability to allow trading throughout the day gives the advantage to ETFs.
Capital Gains Distributions
Another advantage of ETFs over mutual funds is their tax efficiency. Without getting too far into the weeds on mechanics, the ETF creation/redemption mechanism allows ETFs a way to avoid booking capital gains through the redemption-in-kind feature. Thanks to this, very few ETFs ever make capital gains distributions and the ones that do should probably be avoided since it's mostly laziness on the fund manager's part that allows it.
Mutual funds, of course, make capital gains distributions quite often (although it might be less of a problem for larger, index-based, long-term buy-and-hold funds). Quite simply, the capital gains distribution makes it difficult to do any serious tax planning on non-retirement accounts and, if I'm being honest, there's no good reason why someone should be forced to pay taxes based on other people's trading activity.
The Fidelity 500 Index Fund (FXAIX) has made four separate capital gains distributions just since the beginning of 2018. Granted, these were smaller distributions, but these should be expected by mutual fund shareholders regardless of the product.
Another advantage in favor of VTI, which has not made a capital gains distribution in more than 20 years.
Here's perhaps the biggest catch for FZROX and the other Fidelity ZERO fee-free funds. You can only buy it and trade it on the Fidelity platform.
If you're an existing Fidelity brokerage account owner, this is probably a non-issue since you already have access. If you're an investor who (like me) has all of their assets at a place like Vanguard, is it worth it to open up a separate brokerage account away from the rest of your portfolio in order to save 0.03% a year? The personal answer for me is no, but each individual situation is different.
If you're someone who's willing and interested in going that extra step, there's certainly nothing wrong with going ahead and capturing that fee advantage. For some, however, the inconvenience may not be worth it.
If you already have an account at Fidelity and you're looking for a long-term buy-and-hold investment for your IRAs or other retirement account, I think FZROX could be the better choice. In virtually all other scenarios, I'd personally still choose VTI despite the slight cost disadvantage.
Like I mentioned, I have all of my investments at Vanguard and I'm just not interested in opening and managing a second brokerage account unless there's a significant advantage in doing so. Saving a few dollars in expenses for me doesn't qualify.
I think it's also important to consider whether you'd hold this in a retirement or taxable account. Holding FZROX in a taxable account exposes you to capital gains distribution risk and that could impact your financial planning or ability to take full advantage of compounding.
The FZROX vs. VTI debate is a prime example of why you can't make an investment decision based on one number alone. Generally speaking, lower cost is better, but there are many factors to consider in addition to expenses when deciding between one product or another.
Individual circumstances may vary, but in my personal situation, I'd still choose VTI over FZROX.
Note: Interested in getting periodic e-mail notifications when articles are published here? Drop your e-mail in the box below!
ETF Battles: SOXX vs. SMH vs. XSD vs. PSI - Finding The Best Semiconductor ETF
Top Dividend Growth ETFs Ranked For The Rest Of 2021
2 ETFs To Consider Buying (And 1 To Avoid) This Week
44 China ETFs Ranked For 2021
ETF Battles: FXI vs. MCHI vs. KWEB - Which China ETF Is Best?
Top Performing ETFs For August 2021
The 7% Yield Solution: A 4 ETF Portfolio That Offers Diversification, Risk Mitigation & High Yield
5 ETFs That Benefited From Bitcoin's Rise To $50,000
And only Reggie and Ronald stayed the same and protect both of them. He remembered the grave of his mother there, in Russia in the Siberian taiga wilderness in the village of the Old Believers who. Miraculously survived the atomic war, the few people who survived the nuclear winter.
You will also like:
- Ade rd3 015 review
- Star wars trilogy 2008
- Crown point emergency vet
- Westin running boards
- Nashville season 3 songs
- A websocket connection error occurred
She lightly patted her pubic hair, pointing to him, the workplace. "And while Petya was getting in, she turned to Stas: - Then you, right here. And she ran her finger over her lips.