The Best Value ETF to Invest $500 in Right Now
Let's say you have $500 to invest and you're wondering where to park it. That's a great position to be in right now since the overall stock market has slumped, turning many solid stocks into bargain stocks.
I suggest you give some thought to the Vanguard Value ETF (NYSEMKT: VTV). Here's an introduction to it, along with some considerations.
Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue »
As the name says, it's an exchange-traded fund (ETF) -- a fund that trades like a stock. Vanguard is known for low fees, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that the ETF's low expense ratio of 0.04% means you'll pay just $4 per year for each $10,000 you have invested in the fund.
The Vanguard Value ETF is an index fund, tracking the CRSP US Large Cap Value Index, which itself is focused on holding stocks of large and mid-size companies that seem undervalued.
Value investing -- seeking undervalued companies that offer a margin of safety -- is a popular strategy. It tends to favor slower-growing and steadier companies over fast-growing ones that can often be overvalued.
Here are the ETF's recent top holdings:
Stock
Weight in ETF
Berkshire Hathaway
3.45%
JPMorgan Chase
3.30%
ExxonMobil
2.17%
Broadcom
2.06%
UnitedHealth Group
1.93%
Walmart
1.93%
Procter & Gamble
1.81%
Johnson & Johnson
1.76%
Home Depot
1.74%
AbbVie
1.63%
Source: Vanguard.com, as of Feb. 28.
There were recently 340 stocks in the fund, with a median market capitalization of $142 billion. They had average annual earnings growth over the past five years of 10% and a recent price-to-earnings ratio (P/E) of 20.2.
In contrast, the also well-regarded Vanguard Growth ETF (NYSEMKT: VUG) recently had an average annual earnings increase for its holdings of 27.2% and a P/E of 27.2.
The Vanguard Value ETF also had an attractive turnover rate of 8.8% as of the end of 2024, meaning that all the buying and selling in the fund represented just 8.8% of its total fund value. The lower the turnover rate, the more the fund is buying and holding.
Fully 22.4% of the ETF's assets were in financial companies, 15.6% in healthcare stocks, 15.1% in industrials, and 8.9% each in consumer discretionary and consumer staples companies.
So, why should you consider investing in the Vanguard Value ETF? Well, for one thing, it's simply a solid ETF, with low fees. But if you, like many people, see a recession looming, you might want to favor value-focused investing. (A recession isn't guaranteed to be around the corner, by the way.)
Growth stocks are often somewhat or very overvalued, because their gains attract lots of investors, and they can have further to fall in a market pullback. They're epitomized by the "Magnificent Seven" stocks -- none of which were recently held in the Vanguard Value ETF, though they can be, depending on their valuations.
Value stocks, on the other hand, tend to be undervalued or perhaps at most fairly valued, and they can be more resilient in market pullbacks.
This ETF -- or any ETF -- isn't necessarily best for all. But it might be well suited to your needs if you're at least a little risk-averse; you expect to remain invested in the fund for at least a few years; and you would welcome being instantly diversified, with your dollars spread across several hundred well-valued stocks.
The Vanguard Value ETF also pays a dividend, and its recent yield of 2.2% is nearly a whole percentage point above the recent 1.3% of the S&P 500. If you're seeking income from your investments, you'll collect $22 from every $1,000 you have invested in the ETF, and that amount is likely to increase over time.
Whether you invest in this ETF or in other promising ETFs or promising stocks, be sure you're saving and investing for retirement.
Before you buy stock in Vanguard Index Funds - Vanguard Value ETF, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Vanguard Index Funds - Vanguard Value ETF wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $524,747!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $622,041!*
Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 792% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 153% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join .
See the 10 stocks »
*Stock Advisor returns as of April 14, 2025
JPMorgan Chase is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Selena Maranjian has positions in AbbVie, Berkshire Hathaway, Broadcom, Procter & Gamble, and Vanguard Index Funds-Vanguard Growth ETF. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends AbbVie, Berkshire Hathaway, Home Depot, JPMorgan Chase, Vanguard Index Funds-Vanguard Growth ETF, Vanguard Index Funds-Vanguard Value ETF, and Walmart. The Motley Fool recommends Broadcom, Johnson & Johnson, and UnitedHealth Group. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The Best Value ETF to Invest $500 in Right Now was originally published by The Motley Fool
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Better Buy: The Vanguard 500 ETF or the Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
The Vanguard 500 ETF tracks the S&P 500 index. The Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF focuses only on high-yield stocks, and owns around 500 securities. 10 stocks we like better than Vanguard S&P 500 ETF › Investors who want to track "the market" have one very clear choice: a fund that tracks the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC). The index has become the de facto market gauge for U.S. stocks. But what if your goals are a bit different from just equaling the market's performance? There are a lot of options out there, but if you are an income investor, one possibility is the Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (NYSEMKT: VYM). Here's a look at why buying this exchange-traded fund instead of the Vanguard 500 ETF (NYSEMKT: VOO) could be a good call, but also why it might still leave you short of your goals. While the S&P 500 index is used to track stock market performance, that isn't its actual goal. The S&P 500 index is a curated list of 500 of the largest companies in the U.S. -- a set of businesses that the committee believes are representative of the U.S. economy. A few of those companies have more than one type of share class, so technically, there are 503 stocks in the index. It's market-cap weighted, meaning that larger companies account for proportionally larger shares of its value, and therefore have the biggest impacts on the index's performance. That's pretty much how the economy works, as well. All in all, the Vanguard 500 ETF is a pretty reasonable way to invest if you want to keep things simple. And its ultra-low 0.03% expense ratio is very attractive and lower than some other S&P 500 index tracking options. Investors would not be making a mistake buying Vanguard 500 ETF. That said, your investment goal might not be to simply track the market. Income investors focus less on the prospect of share price growth, and more on the goal of finding assets that will regularly and reliably distribute funds to shareholders. It's a common investment theme, particularly among retired investors, who are often using the dividends their portfolios generate to cover much of their living expenses. The Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF's goal is, basically, to buy higher-yielding U.S. stocks. And, interestingly enough, it, too, owns roughly 500 stocks. The dividend yield on the Vanguard 500 ETF is around 1.3%, while the yield of the Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF is a much higher 2.9%. So income investors might find it an attractive alternative. The portfolio's construction is fairly simple. The fund managers of the Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF start by taking all of the dividend-paying companies that trade on U.S. exchanges. They then select the 50% of the list with the highest yields. The fund's holdings are market cap weighted. Its expense ratio of 0.06% is a bit higher than the Vanguard 500 ETF's, but most income investors probably won't stress out about that given its dramatically higher yield. The long-term total return graph above for the two exchange-traded funds is interesting. It clearly shows that the Vanguard 500 ETF has outperformed the Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF over the longer term. But notice that the real divergence happened after the 2020 bear market that was triggered by the onset of the coronavirus pandemic. That was when the performance of a small number of megacap growth companies started to dominate the S&P 500 index's overall performance. Before that, the large number of stocks that both indexes had in common resulted in them trading in similar fashion. If you are an income investor, the current period of underperformance coming out of the latest bear market is probably the anomaly and not the norm. In fact, if you compare how the two ETFs fared in the year-to-date period -- a volatile time frame -- you'll notice that the Vanguard 500 ETF fell dramatically more sharply than the Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF did as the tech stocks that had lifted the S&P 500 higher plunged. If you are a dividend investor looking for a broad-based index fund, the highly diversified Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF would probably be a good replacement for Vanguard 500 ETF in your portfolio. The Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF's strength is its large and diversified portfolio. But there's a trade-off that comes with that on the yield front. It owns so many stocks that the portfolio's overall yield gets diluted. If yield is your key goal, you might be better off looking at an ETF like SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 High Dividend ETF (NYSEMKT: SPYD), which buys the 80 highest-yielding stocks from within the S&P 500 index. It has a roughly 4.5% yield. Just go in knowing that if you make this choice, you're giving up a large piece of the diversification safety net that both the Vanguard 500 ETF and the Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF provide. Choosing the Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF allows you to keep the high degree of diversification and still reap a more attractive income stream than the S&P 500 index offers. Before you buy stock in Vanguard S&P 500 ETF, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $674,395!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $858,011!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 997% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Reuben Gregg Brewer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Vanguard S&P 500 ETF and Vanguard Whitehall Funds-Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Better Buy: The Vanguard 500 ETF or the Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF was originally published by The Motley Fool
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
A bond market meltdown might be inevitable
The recent surge in yields on long-dated U.S. Treasurys has generated concern in some circles. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, recently warned that the bond market is likely to crack as a result of spiraling government debt levels. 'I just don't know if it's going to be a crisis in six months or six years, and I'm hoping that we change both the trajectory of the debt and the ability of market makers to make markets,' he said. Others remain more sanguine and observe that interest rates have in fact normalized close to their pre-2008 global financial crisis levels. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, both real and nominal rates were stuck at unusually low levels for about a dozen years. But, since 2022, we have seen both policy and market rates edge toward their pre-crisis levels. With interest rates reverting back to their historical norms, is the current wariness surrounding the long end of the yield curve among key investors warranted? To evaluate the validity of such fears, it is worth reviewing recent U.S. fiscal history. During the past 45 years, the U.S. has had to deal periodically with the 'twin deficits' problem — the near-synchronous widening of the fiscal deficit and the current account deficit. In the past, bipartisan policy compromises pushed through by enlightened political leadership have helped America avoid a debt/currency crisis. In the early 1980s, the Reagan-era tax cuts contributed to a decline in U.S. government revenue that was not offset by cuts on the spending side and this led to a widening of the budget deficit. Meanwhile, the high interest rates associated with the Paul Volcker disinflation episode led to a sharp appreciation of the U.S. dollar and contributed to a deterioration of the trade and current account balances. This simultaneous deterioration of budget and current account balances gave rise to the twin-deficit hypothesis and highlighted the potential interconnectedness between fiscal deficits and trade deficits. Emergence of 'twin deficits' during the early 1980s generated significant concern in policymaking circles and led to concrete measures on both the fiscal front (in the form of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990) and on the exchange rate stabilization front (in the form of multilateral agreements such as the 1985 Plaza Accord and the 1987 Louvre Accord). In the Clinton era, further steps (such as the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, the reduction in military spending associated with the post-Cold War peace dividend and the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act) were undertaken to improve the U.S. fiscal outlook. During the fiscal 1998 through fiscal 2001 period, the federal government even ran budget surpluses. Concerns regarding the 'twin deficits' reemerged during the George W. Bush era as fiscal and current account imbalances worsened. Prior to the 2008 global financial crisis, economists worried that the spike in budget and trade deficits was serious enough to threaten a dollar crisis. Following the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, however, there was a dollar shortage abroad and the U.S. currency actually strengthened. Furthermore, as household consumption collapsed and personal saving rate rose, the U.S. current account markedly improved in the post- global financial crisis era. During the Obama era, the 2011 Budget Control Act and the artificially suppressed borrowing costs (via Fed's quantitative easing and near-zero interest rate policies) helped ease the fiscal burden. Over the past five years, both the budget and trade deficits have deteriorated sharply. Budget deficits have exceeded 5 percent of GDP since 2020 and projections indicate deficits will remain elevated, raising concerns about fiscal sustainability. Critically, government borrowing costs have risen sharply since 2022. Historian Niall Ferguson has suggested that America's superpower status may be threatened as the U.S. government now spends more on interest payments than on defense. Unlike prior episodes, the current cycle of deteriorating external and fiscal imbalances is significantly more worrisome as the country appears to be beset by institutional decay and political ineptitude. Domestic and foreign investors in U.S. Treasurys are starting to fret about the absence of fiscal rectitude even as government debt-to-GDP ratios reach levels last observed in 1946. Additionally, illogical and inconsistent policies on the trade and foreign policy front raise the prospect of a so-called 'moron premium' being applied to U.S. assets. Legislative threats to tax foreign capital is raising alarm and will likely push up the cost of borrowing even further. Such actions are also fueling concerns about the pre-eminent reserve currency status of the U.S. dollar. Any diminishment of dollar's exorbitant privilege will affect U.S. fiscal sustainability. Unlike the 1990s, there is currently no political consensus on reining in fiscal profligacy and restoring fiscal sanity. Harvard's Ken Rogoff recently noted: 'To be sure, this isn't just about Trump. Interest rates were already rising sharply during Biden's term. Had Democrats won the presidency and both houses of Congress in 2024, America's fiscal outlook would probably have been just as bleak. Until a crisis hits, there is little political will to act, and any leader who attempts to pursue fiscal consolidation runs the risk of being voted out of office.' The late great MIT economist Rudiger Dornbusch once quipped: 'In economics, things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.' Recent spikes in bond market volatility and long-dated Treasury yields suggest that the moment of fiscal reckoning may finally be approaching. Vivekanand Jayakumar, Ph.D., is an associate professor of economics at the University of Tampa.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
If I Could Only Buy and Hold a Single Stock, This Would Be It.
While Netflix, Amazon, and Nvidia have delivered spectacular returns, they lack the diversification needed for a single-stock portfolio. Berkshire Hathaway operates like an expertly curated ETF, owning 68 distinct companies plus stakes in nearly 40 public companies. Despite not owning Berkshire myself, I recognize it as the safest choice for investors seeking a single long-term holding. 10 stocks we like better than Berkshire Hathaway › Let's make this clear from the start: I would never recommend owning just one stock for the long haul. A proper nest egg needs some variety, either in a carefully assembled basket of diverse stocks or focused on a broad market-tracking exchange-traded fund (ETF). For the sake of argument, however, I could imagine buying some Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) (NYSE: BRK.B) stock and just letting it roll. I know, I know. You wanted me to double down on Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN), whose stock has absolutely crushed the general market in the long run. Or I could have picked Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX), the media-streaming pioneer that's created most of my wealth so far and that might join the trillion-dollar market cap club in a few years. Perhaps you expected Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA), with its unmatched five-year returns and huge long-term future in the artificial intelligence (AI) industry. These stocks sure tick a few of the right boxes, but none of them are as naturally diversified as Berkshire Hathaway. That's really what I'm looking for in a "single stock for all ages." I own all three of the suggested Berkshire alternatives above, by the way. Netflix was an early name in my portfolio, inspired by fellow Fool Rick Munarriz's in-depth analysis of the company in the mid-2000s. When Netflix went through the Qwikster-branded separation of DVD and streaming services, I doubled down on my investment at a fantastic price. That particular Netflix stake has gained 10,350% in less than 14 years. But that's just my favorite play on the future of digital media services. I would never dare to make Netflix my only holding, just in case somebody builds a better media-streaming mousetrap. I wish I had pounced on Amazon much earlier, like Motley Fool co-founders Tom and David Gardner did. But I dragged my feet, and watched the online bookstore become an e-commerce buffet with a highly profitable side of cloud computing services. My oldest Amazon investment is only up by 430% since January 2017. Still, Amazon only operates in a couple of business sectors. The company (and stock) could be vulnerable to a sudden sea change in cloud computing, possibly led by Microsoft's (NASDAQ: MSFT) Windows Azure. And how well would Amazon's dominant e-commerce business perform if global rivals such as Alibaba (NYSE: BABA) or MercadoLibre (NASDAQ: MELI) found some traction in the American market? Amazon is not a one-trick pony, but the company should pick up a few more skills before entering this single-stock discussion. I'm especially worried about Nvidia's long-term tenacity. The early leader in AI accelerator hardware could very well run into a superior alternative in the next few years. The risk only grows larger if you stretch the timeline out over decades. Rivals like Advanced Micro Devices (NASDAQ: AMD) and Intel (NASDAQ: INTC) control tiny slices of the AI chip opportunity so far, but that could change. The next market-defining AI winner could be some upstart I haven't heard of yet. Moreover, leading cloud computing experts such as Microsoft and Amazon already design AI accelerators of their own, hoping to meet their exact needs at a lower cost. Nvidia's big growth spurt might have a few years left in it. I'm just not convinced that the stock will continue to rise after that. My largest Nvidia purchase has posted a 780% gain since June 2022, but I cashed in on those paper gains and sold most of my Nvidia shares earlier this year. This pony needs to learn a few more tricks, too. So diversity sets Berkshire apart from the biggest success stories of this era. Sure, Warren Buffett's stock-picking and wealth management expertise deserves tons of respect. But he is also known as a great mentor, and many of Berkshire's top-performing picks in recent years were added by Buffett's lieutenants. I expect the company to continue doing well when the Oracle of Omaha retires at the end of 2025. The stock is kind of like a carefully curated ETF. Berkshire Hathaway owns and operates 68 distinct companies these days. The names range from GEICO car insurance and Duracell batteries to Business Wire information services and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad. Berkshire dabbles in e-commerce (Oriental Trading Company) and clothing (Fruit of the Loom), not to mention home construction (Clayton Homes) and fast food (Dairy Queen). This business list is almost as diverse as the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) market index. And that's just Berkshire's in-house brands. The company also owns stock in about 40 public companies. The largest investments include a $60.7 billion stake in Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL), a $45.1 billion position in American Express (NYSE: AXP), and a $28.5 billion holding of Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO). That's consumer electronics, financial services, and beverage distribution. Apple's gigantic presence may look risky, but the danger looks smaller when you also consider Berkshire's epic collection of fully owned businesses. Do you see a theme here? I do, but it's not a single industry. Berkshire is all about diversity, shielding the company and its investors against the temporary ups and downs in any one particular industry. I don't actually own any Berkshire Hathaway stock yet. I get my portfolio diversification kicks in other ways, with several dozen hand-picked stocks and a couple of broad index funds serving this purpose. That's arguably a mistake, since Berkshire's stock tends to outperform the S&P 500 in the long run, and I can't compete with the Buffett team's stock-picking skill. So if you're starting a new portfolio today, or just looking for an alternative to the common S&P 500 index funds, you should give Berkshire Hathaway a serious look. It's definitely a safer long-term bet than Nvidia, Netflix, or even Amazon. Before you buy stock in Berkshire Hathaway, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Berkshire Hathaway wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $669,517!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $868,615!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 792% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. American Express is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Anders Bylund has positions in Alibaba Group, Amazon, Intel, Netflix, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Advanced Micro Devices, Amazon, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, Intel, MercadoLibre, Microsoft, Netflix, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool recommends Alibaba Group and recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft, short August 2025 $24 calls on Intel, and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. If I Could Only Buy and Hold a Single Stock, This Would Be It. was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
