The WSJ article (by Ian Salisbury) is available here, and is worth a read—not just because I like to see my name in print, but because Salisbury does a good job laying out the fee landscape in the ETF industry.

The portfolio first ran in this blog in July. For those that are interested, I've reprinted the original blog in its entirety below.

My sample low-cost ETF portfolio can now be bought for less than 15 basis points in expenses (0.148% to be exact).

That's down from more than sixteen basis points in late-June. The difference is the recent launch of the Vanguard Europe Pacific ETF (AMEX: VEA), which lowered the cost of access to the MSCI EAFE index from 0.35% to 0.15%.

As mentioned, this "low cost" portfolio is my way of keeping tabs on the state of the ETF industry. It follows a sample allocation that might fit an aggressive younger investor with a long time horizon. The fund positions, weights and costs are:

Blend it together and you get a net expense ratio of 0.148%. The fact that you can own such a well-diversified, balanced portfolio for less than 15 basis points (0.15%) is astounding to me. A few years ago, this would have cost a huge multiple of that. Buy that portfolio from a no-cost or low-cost brokerage account (or a portfolio-builder tool like Foliofn), rebalance annually and you're looking at a fairly sophisticated, diversified portfolio with minimal fees.

One obvious thing that jumps out about this portfolio is that Vanguard predominates. The reason, simply, is that Vanguard has staked out a position as the cost leader in the ETF space. That's not to say that Vanguard ETFs are the best choice for everyone—there are good reasons to choose other funds, including structure, service, etc.—but the company is doing yeomen's work putting pressure on the fee front.