Back to top

Image: Bigstock

Is Vanguard Institutional Total Stock Market Plus (VITPX) a Strong Mutual Fund Pick Right Now?

Read MoreHide Full Article

Have you been searching for a Large Cap Blend fund? You might want to begin with Vanguard Institutional Total Stock Market Plus (VITPX - Free Report) . The fund does not have a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank, though we have been able to explore other metrics like performance, volatility, and cost.

Objective

We note that VITPX is a Large Cap Blend option, an area loaded with different options. More often than not, Large Cap Blend mutual funds invest in companies with a market cap of over $10 billion. Buying stakes in bigger companies offer these funds more stability, and are well-suited for investors with a 'buy and hold' mindset. Additionally, blended funds mix large, more established firms into their portfolios, giving investors exposure to value and growth opportunities.

History of Fund/Manager

Vanguard Group is based in Malvern, PA, and is the manager of VITPX. The Vanguard Institutional Total Stock Market Plus made its debut in May of 2001 and VITPX has managed to accumulate roughly $33.13 billion in assets, as of the most recently available information. Walter Nejman is the fund's current manager and has held that role since April of 2016.

Performance

Of course, investors look for strong performance in funds. This fund carries a 5-year annualized total return of 12.92%, and is in the middle third among its category peers. But if you are looking for a shorter time frame, it is also worth looking at its 3-year annualized total return of 23.27%, which places it in the middle third during this time-frame.

It is important to note that the product's returns may not reflect all its expenses. Any fees not reflected would lower the returns. Total returns do not reflect the fund's [%] sale charge. If sales charges were included, total returns would have been lower.

When looking at a fund's performance, it is also important to note the standard deviation of the returns. The lower the standard deviation, the less volatility the fund experiences. Over the past three years, VITPX's standard deviation comes in at 13.13%, compared to the category average of 11.69%. Looking at the past 5 years, the fund's standard deviation is 15.71% compared to the category average of 13.99%. This makes the fund more volatile than its peers over the past half-decade.

Risk Factors

Investors should note that the fund has a 5-year beta of 1.01, which means it is hypothetically as volatile as the market at large. Because alpha represents a portfolio's performance on a risk-adjusted basis relative to a benchmark, which is the S&P 500 in this case, one should pay attention to this metric as well. VITPX's 5-year performance has produced a negative alpha of -1.23, which means managers in this portfolio find it difficult to pick securities that generate better-than-benchmark returns.

Expenses

Costs are increasingly important for mutual fund investing, and particularly as competition heats up in this market. And all things being equal, a lower cost product will outperform its otherwise identical counterpart, so taking a closer look at these metrics is key for investors. In terms of fees, VITPX is a no load fund. It has an expense ratio of 0.02% compared to the category average of 0.82%. Looking at the fund from a cost perspective, VITPX is actually cheaper than its peers.

Investors should also note that the minimum initial investment for the product is $100.00 million and that each subsequent investment needs to be at $1.

Fees charged by investment advisors have not been taken into consideration. Returns would be less if those were included.

Bottom Line

Want even more information about VITPX? Then go over to Zacks.com and check out our mutual fund comparison tool, and all of the other great features that we have to help you with your mutual fund analysis for additional information. Zacks provides a full suite of tools to help you analyze your portfolio - both funds and stocks - in the most efficient way possible.

Published in