Wealthfront: Silicon Valley Tech at Wall Street Prices(medium.com)
medium.com
Wealthfront: Silicon Valley Tech at Wall Street Prices
https://medium.com/@blakeross/wealthfront-silicon-valley-tech-at-wall-street-prices-fdd2e5f54905
193 comments
> Wealthfront markets itself as cheaper than vanguard etfs
Do they? I always saw them as an alternative to a traditional advisor which can be 1%+ of assets. Even Vanguard can be overwhelming for some people who have to make choices on allocation[1]. For someone who wants auto-rebalancing and a set it and forget it manager, .25% isn't all that much. Obviously if you want to manage the money yourself you can always open a TD account where most of the ETFs used by Wealthfront/Betterment can be purchased commission free. But then the user is left doing buys, rebalancing, etc...
[1] For a complete no-brainer solution open a Vanguard account and dump everything into one of their target funds. Some people want something between the target fund and managing their own though.
Do they? I always saw them as an alternative to a traditional advisor which can be 1%+ of assets. Even Vanguard can be overwhelming for some people who have to make choices on allocation[1]. For someone who wants auto-rebalancing and a set it and forget it manager, .25% isn't all that much. Obviously if you want to manage the money yourself you can always open a TD account where most of the ETFs used by Wealthfront/Betterment can be purchased commission free. But then the user is left doing buys, rebalancing, etc...
[1] For a complete no-brainer solution open a Vanguard account and dump everything into one of their target funds. Some people want something between the target fund and managing their own though.
> Even Vanguard can be overwhelming for some people who have to make choices on allocation[1].
What's wrong with their Target Retirement 20?? funds if you don't want to choose your own allocation?
What's wrong with their Target Retirement 20?? funds if you don't want to choose your own allocation?
Nothing is wrong with that fund (in fact the target funds are always my recommendations to friends when they are starting out), but there is a space filled by the robo-advisors between target fund buckets and more of a sliding scale of risk. Although, at that point if someone is picking more precise allocations through a risk proxy then they might as well skip the robo-advisors and do the work themselves.
Idea: as you get closer and closer to the target retirement year, start investing in the newest target retirement fund that year. For example, if you are investing in TR2060 now, start contributing to TR2070 in 2025 instead of sticking with TR2060. That way you can "choose" between multiple TR funds with varying levels of risk each year.
This is why I switched to Wealthfront.
I inherited an actively managed Morgan Stanley portfolio which has fees around 2-3% annually. I initially looked at managing everything myself, but didn't want to have to worry about all the finer points of managing one's own account. I may be losing the additional half of a percent, but in my mind, I am gaining far more.
I inherited an actively managed Morgan Stanley portfolio which has fees around 2-3% annually. I initially looked at managing everything myself, but didn't want to have to worry about all the finer points of managing one's own account. I may be losing the additional half of a percent, but in my mind, I am gaining far more.
There are also degrees of self management. You can see how the robo-advisor splits your money and with just a bit more work open a brokerage account and do the same split with the same funds (or very close). Then you just do buys once/month or quarter. Many of the ETFs used are also commission free at many of the brokers.
The key thing with fees is that high fees are often a sign of a poor manager or poor client service. Vanguard can charge low fees because they have huge amounts of money invested with them, as do other successful asset managers.
The problem, as the article points out, is that people don't understand compounding - and have been brought up to associate paying a bit more with better products.
I work at a successful asset management fund, one that looks after Vanguard money. The vast majority of our staff's pension investments take exactly this strategy.
I work at a successful asset management fund, one that looks after Vanguard money. The vast majority of our staff's pension investments take exactly this strategy.
I started using Betterment because I thought their UI was pretty.
Yes, I realize they take fees (although I get a special deal for reasons despite having a smaller account). Yes, all things being equal, leaving my money in a Vanguard Target Fund would probably result in higher gains (heck, my 401k is still in a Vanguard Target Fund since it's set-and-forget).
But the Betterment UI makes putting in more money as simple as typing in a number and clicking two buttons -- so I feel compelled to save more ($50 here, $100 there). And that, to me, is worth the 0.15% fee that they charge.
Yes, I realize they take fees (although I get a special deal for reasons despite having a smaller account). Yes, all things being equal, leaving my money in a Vanguard Target Fund would probably result in higher gains (heck, my 401k is still in a Vanguard Target Fund since it's set-and-forget).
But the Betterment UI makes putting in more money as simple as typing in a number and clicking two buttons -- so I feel compelled to save more ($50 here, $100 there). And that, to me, is worth the 0.15% fee that they charge.
This puzzled me that, for the past few years, YC has wanted so badly to invest in more or less traditional style wealth management companies. It's so extremely hard to outperform existing methods in terms of returns. For user experience, these are the kind of things that are best if totally automatic, with no interface at all.
So I guess they just compete purely for growth and that's it - like the commercials for popular drugs on TV, it's an industry 99% about advertising?
SV tech + extremely risk averse, mature, competitive space = doesn't seem to be a good fit.
So I guess they just compete purely for growth and that's it - like the commercials for popular drugs on TV, it's an industry 99% about advertising?
SV tech + extremely risk averse, mature, competitive space = doesn't seem to be a good fit.
> This puzzled me that, for the past few years, YC has wanted so badly to invest in more or less traditional style wealth management companies.
There seems to be a strong belief in Silicon Valley that software is going to eat the fat margins in financial services and that there's all this potential for disruption.
The problem is that software's been eating financial services for the past 30 years and the fat margins aren't always as fat as they seem once you factor in things like compliance costs (or the demand curve is far steeper than you expect it to be).
There seems to be a strong belief in Silicon Valley that software is going to eat the fat margins in financial services and that there's all this potential for disruption.
The problem is that software's been eating financial services for the past 30 years and the fat margins aren't always as fat as they seem once you factor in things like compliance costs (or the demand curve is far steeper than you expect it to be).
Re: fat margins
A lot of that margin goes to the front line troops (whatever you want to call them-- brokers, advisers, planners, etc.) These are and have traditionally been charismatic people who were relatively high touch. If you think of them as providing a service to customers than they look like a massive cost center and the businesses that employ them ripe for disruption. But if you look at them as a sales force the picture becomes much clearer. Morgan Stanley wealth management has Bob who plays pickup basketball on the weekend with a bunch of doctors. What does Wealthfront have -- an ad on Yahoo finance?
My guess is that at some point these companies will pivot to trying to be the backend to a bunch of independents or small shops out there hitting the pavement. The customers will still end up with the 1-2% wrap, the robo-advisers will still end up with their .25% cut, but at least the customers won't be being put in high fee actively managed funds. So they'll be some improvement over the status quo.
A lot of that margin goes to the front line troops (whatever you want to call them-- brokers, advisers, planners, etc.) These are and have traditionally been charismatic people who were relatively high touch. If you think of them as providing a service to customers than they look like a massive cost center and the businesses that employ them ripe for disruption. But if you look at them as a sales force the picture becomes much clearer. Morgan Stanley wealth management has Bob who plays pickup basketball on the weekend with a bunch of doctors. What does Wealthfront have -- an ad on Yahoo finance?
My guess is that at some point these companies will pivot to trying to be the backend to a bunch of independents or small shops out there hitting the pavement. The customers will still end up with the 1-2% wrap, the robo-advisers will still end up with their .25% cut, but at least the customers won't be being put in high fee actively managed funds. So they'll be some improvement over the status quo.
So let's say Broker Bob's 200k of salary + expenses is buying you 10 doctors per year -- 20k per conversion.
I'm pretty sure the cost per conversion for your ad on Yahoo Finance is going to be a lot cheaper than Bob's 20k.
I'm pretty sure the cost per conversion for your ad on Yahoo Finance is going to be a lot cheaper than Bob's 20k.
>My guess is that at some point these companies will pivot to trying to be the backend to a bunch of independents or small shops out there hitting the pavement.
It is already happening. See: Betterment Institutional, Schwab Institutional Intelligent Portfolios, and Motif Advisor
It is already happening. See: Betterment Institutional, Schwab Institutional Intelligent Portfolios, and Motif Advisor
Or once you factor in the profit motive and that the VC owners like margins & acquisition numbers to stay high. Quite a hard sell to convince investors to take higher risk on less money across the board. I'd never even attempt it.
Additional issue is how these companies come about. They seem to be dependent on backtests to see if their secret formula works. While this approach might be workable in coding, it is not so straightforward in finance. As pointed out in the blog:
>But again and again, Wealthfront tries without blinking to draw a straight line between tax alpha and cold hard cash. For example, they offer a chart titled “After-tax Price Return of VTI vs. Direct Indexing” that appears to show that if you had merely flipped on Direct Indexing in 2000, you would have earned ~2% compared to losing 9% with Vanguard’s ancient index fund technology! They appear to reach these numbers simply by adding the maximum possible tax alpha to VTI’s return.
What Wealthfront did not talk about is - with S&P500 component stocks changing, so will the portfolio. It would need to rebalanced and constituted causing brokerage and other charges. While in hindsight it looks great, the actual trades during live environment could have been different.
>But again and again, Wealthfront tries without blinking to draw a straight line between tax alpha and cold hard cash. For example, they offer a chart titled “After-tax Price Return of VTI vs. Direct Indexing” that appears to show that if you had merely flipped on Direct Indexing in 2000, you would have earned ~2% compared to losing 9% with Vanguard’s ancient index fund technology! They appear to reach these numbers simply by adding the maximum possible tax alpha to VTI’s return.
What Wealthfront did not talk about is - with S&P500 component stocks changing, so will the portfolio. It would need to rebalanced and constituted causing brokerage and other charges. While in hindsight it looks great, the actual trades during live environment could have been different.
Oh, I'm sure that startups know very well how poor and incomplete that methodology is. They just present this non-forward tested approach to fool the end users who don't know any better.
To me, the real question is to why VCs are interested in these kind of businesses at all given the scale they must achieve in order to make any money.
Even if they took 0.25% from the $1b they've got under management and they took 0.25% across all of it (which they don't), that's $2.5m. At $10b under management, they're making $25m - not exactly blowing the roof off from a VC point of view.
Now, the argument they make is "we will sell them other products and services" - but that, to me, is wishful thinking. Especially with the big boys like Vanguard and Schwab coming in in a big way.
Even if they took 0.25% from the $1b they've got under management and they took 0.25% across all of it (which they don't), that's $2.5m. At $10b under management, they're making $25m - not exactly blowing the roof off from a VC point of view.
Now, the argument they make is "we will sell them other products and services" - but that, to me, is wishful thinking. Especially with the big boys like Vanguard and Schwab coming in in a big way.
Buy and hold forever is generally great advice, until it isn't.
I'd much rather not have 30%+ of my life savings wiped out in a single recession with the rest of the market.
In my humble opinion, thoroughly backtested trading algorithms based on hard statistics is the only rational way to participate in the market. The market is fundamentally an irrational entity, and investors should be looking for ways to systematically protect themselves from the market's irrational mood swings.
Check out Quantopian:
https://www.quantopian.com/home
Even a trivial moving average crossover algorithm like the one I currently have deployed can give you surprisingly robust protection against severe downswings, and outperform the overall market significantly over the long term despite the small losses caused by false positives.
http://i.imgur.com/ZhN0QIp.png
I'd much rather not have 30%+ of my life savings wiped out in a single recession with the rest of the market.
In my humble opinion, thoroughly backtested trading algorithms based on hard statistics is the only rational way to participate in the market. The market is fundamentally an irrational entity, and investors should be looking for ways to systematically protect themselves from the market's irrational mood swings.
Check out Quantopian:
https://www.quantopian.com/home
Even a trivial moving average crossover algorithm like the one I currently have deployed can give you surprisingly robust protection against severe downswings, and outperform the overall market significantly over the long term despite the small losses caused by false positives.
http://i.imgur.com/ZhN0QIp.png
thoroughly backtested trading algorithms based on hard statistics is the only rational way to participate in the market. The market is fundamentally an irrational entity
You do realize those two statements contradict each other?
You do realize those two statements contradict each other?
What's also funny to me is that 'thoroughly backtested trading algorithms based on hard statistics' will work consistently until they fail miserably.
During a recession event the 30% loss isn't real until you close your position, with trading algorithms the time to hold is so low that any losses are very quickly realized.
During a recession event the 30% loss isn't real until you close your position, with trading algorithms the time to hold is so low that any losses are very quickly realized.
"backtested trading algorithms"
Your algorithm can predict the past.
Congratulations.
Your algorithm can predict the past.
Congratulations.
I don't think you know how these work
tosseraccount has an excellent point. Overfitting is a huge danger. In the end only trading the live market for some time will tell you whether you have a profitable strategy.
If you're invested in an index fund, wouldn't the only way to realize the loss during a recession be to sell? Anyone who stayed the course after 2008 would have seen record gains in the years following.
You're right, but it would still be better to realize a small loss early in the crash and and buy back in at the bottom than just ride the whole thing out. Of course, that kind of timing is pretty much impossible so everyone suggests you don't do it.
Yes, but consider the "accumulation phase" (pre-retirement) vs. the "distribution phase" (retirement). At some point, you need to sell part of your portfolio to to pay your bills []. Check out "sequence of returns risks".
Or buy annuities, setup a bond ladder, or hold dividend stocks, but these have their own, related issues.
Early in the accumulation phase, however, I completely agree with you -- you're making the central argument for a long-term buy-and-hold strategy.
Or buy annuities, setup a bond ladder, or hold dividend stocks, but these have their own, related issues.
Early in the accumulation phase, however, I completely agree with you -- you're making the central argument for a long-term buy-and-hold strategy.
Your algorithm will likely not stand up to Walk Forward Analysis/Optimization/Testing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walk_forward_optimization
I recommend reading "The Evaluation and Optimization of Trading Strategies" by Robert Pardo.
I recommend reading "The Evaluation and Optimization of Trading Strategies" by Robert Pardo.
It's really the most fundamental rule for every type of machine learning task -- there should be both a (1) test set and (2) a separate holdout validation set. No matter if the task is classification, sequence prediction, regression, manifold learning, clustering, whatever.
Really surprising how so few amateur traders understand this fundamental principal. Scientists too.
Really surprising how so few amateur traders understand this fundamental principal. Scientists too.
> Buy and hold forever is generally great advice, until it isn't.
That's a truism. I could say the same thing about algorithmic trading.
The fact of the matter is that the median hedge fund manager has negative alpha. It is extremely difficult to pick winners via any strategy. In fact, it's so difficult that for people who can do it, the resulting lifestyle and compensation is so great that the asset management shops that they work out have almost zero attrition.
Moreover, the whole point of passive investment is that the odds of that kind of a market-wide crash affecting your money over a 30-year timespan are infinitesimal. If the market actually were to devolve like that, nobody would make money in the market, regardless of strategy.
> Investors should be looking for ways to systematically protect themselves from the market's irrational mood swings.
Yes, it's called diversification.
I won't harp on the backtesting point, but what I will say is this: I'm sure that you understand the risk-reward tradeoff. It would be impossible to participate in any sort of finance and not know this concept. Quite frankly, the probability of 30%+ of your life savings being wiped out in an index fund is unbelievably low. You eat some return at the expense of lower volatility, but we're talking about a 401(k) here. We want that kind of expected stability.
That's a truism. I could say the same thing about algorithmic trading.
The fact of the matter is that the median hedge fund manager has negative alpha. It is extremely difficult to pick winners via any strategy. In fact, it's so difficult that for people who can do it, the resulting lifestyle and compensation is so great that the asset management shops that they work out have almost zero attrition.
Moreover, the whole point of passive investment is that the odds of that kind of a market-wide crash affecting your money over a 30-year timespan are infinitesimal. If the market actually were to devolve like that, nobody would make money in the market, regardless of strategy.
> Investors should be looking for ways to systematically protect themselves from the market's irrational mood swings.
Yes, it's called diversification.
I won't harp on the backtesting point, but what I will say is this: I'm sure that you understand the risk-reward tradeoff. It would be impossible to participate in any sort of finance and not know this concept. Quite frankly, the probability of 30%+ of your life savings being wiped out in an index fund is unbelievably low. You eat some return at the expense of lower volatility, but we're talking about a 401(k) here. We want that kind of expected stability.
"the probability of 30%+ of your life savings being wiped out in an index fund is unbelievably low"
The crash of 69 : 36%
The crash of 73: 48%
The crash of 87: 33%
The dotcom crash 2000: 50%
Housing Bubble 2007: 56%
[ source : http://traderhq.com/illustrated-history-every-s-p-500-bear-m... ]
The odds that at some point a portfolio of S&P 500 stocks will be 30% off a recent high is actually very high.
Wars. Panics. Depressions. Plagues. Recessions. Revolutions.
They still happen.
The crash of 69 : 36%
The crash of 73: 48%
The crash of 87: 33%
The dotcom crash 2000: 50%
Housing Bubble 2007: 56%
[ source : http://traderhq.com/illustrated-history-every-s-p-500-bear-m... ]
The odds that at some point a portfolio of S&P 500 stocks will be 30% off a recent high is actually very high.
Wars. Panics. Depressions. Plagues. Recessions. Revolutions.
They still happen.
Yes, they do. I did not dispute that. But as I said (perhaps not sufficiently clearly--my mistake), and as other posters have pointed out, this neutralizes out over the 30-year time horizon of an index fund investment. One dollar invested in the S&P 500 in 1970 would become $43.12 in 2000, for example, despite the crashes of 73, 87, and 2000.
I repeat, if the market were bad enough that these crashes actually wiped out your account over a 30 year period, nobody would make money in the market at all. Index funds are a low-risk, low-return investment with low management fees. They're a much better investment choice for a retirement account than algorithmically trading that money. And if you were good enough at algo trading to make solid returns over time, you might as well quit your day job and open a hedge fund or asset management shop.
I repeat, if the market were bad enough that these crashes actually wiped out your account over a 30 year period, nobody would make money in the market at all. Index funds are a low-risk, low-return investment with low management fees. They're a much better investment choice for a retirement account than algorithmically trading that money. And if you were good enough at algo trading to make solid returns over time, you might as well quit your day job and open a hedge fund or asset management shop.
check out Nikkei 225 past 25 years...
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^n225+interactive#{%22ran...
I don't know much about the market, and know even less about actual investing strategy-ish stuff, but what does the loss look like five years later?
I guess what I mean is, for an "index fund", crashes don't seem to be... permanent?
Perhaps that's small comfort for someone who's set to retire the month after one of these 30% crashes, but I guess that's what the whole "invest more conservatively as you get older" thing is supposed to help with?
I guess what I mean is, for an "index fund", crashes don't seem to be... permanent?
Perhaps that's small comfort for someone who's set to retire the month after one of these 30% crashes, but I guess that's what the whole "invest more conservatively as you get older" thing is supposed to help with?
> I guess that's what the whole "invest more conservatively as you get older" thing is supposed to help with?
The big index and mutual fund companies offer different allocations between stocks and bonds. You might start out with 80% of your account in an index fund (or other diversified basket of stocks) and 20% in a hedged basket of investment-grade, low-risk bonds. This percentage allocation would change over time as you got closer to retirement.
You're not going to get insanely rich off of this, but it is a decent replacement for the fact that savings account interest rates are effectively 0% these days.
The big index and mutual fund companies offer different allocations between stocks and bonds. You might start out with 80% of your account in an index fund (or other diversified basket of stocks) and 20% in a hedged basket of investment-grade, low-risk bonds. This percentage allocation would change over time as you got closer to retirement.
You're not going to get insanely rich off of this, but it is a decent replacement for the fact that savings account interest rates are effectively 0% these days.
'Wiped out' to me implies more than a temporary difference between recent high and recent low which both probably existed for far too little time for you to be the first person to realize to sell at the peek and first person to buy at the bottom.
Can you show the forward performance, starting from the date when you chose those 4 parameters - 165.12, 172.44, 164.23, 156.02?
As you know, backtested results with carefully tuned magic numbers can potentially mean nothing.
As you know, backtested results with carefully tuned magic numbers can potentially mean nothing.
you should start a hedge fund, and charge 2.5%!
joking aside, i've played with quantopian way back, and think its a fun/cool concept
joking aside, i've played with quantopian way back, and think its a fun/cool concept
The only quibble I have is that taxes would outweigh the advantages here. You either do this in a tax free account, or your trading needs to be a lot better!
Your overall point is not a bad one, but investors don't need "thoroughly backtested trading algorithms" to protect themselves. Frankly, many of the people who use "thoroughly backtested trading algorithms" don't do as well as they supposedly should.
It is, on the other hand, entirely possible for an average investor to learn basic technical analysis concepts and apply them visually to charts. At a minimum, for instance, if you can draw a trend line on a price chart and identify when price breaks important trend lines, you can easily avoid losses from major declines without having to write a single line of code or spend more than 5-10 minutes a day checking on your portfolio.
A decent book in this vein is The Visual Investor[1].
[1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Visual-Investor-Market-Trends/dp/0...
It is, on the other hand, entirely possible for an average investor to learn basic technical analysis concepts and apply them visually to charts. At a minimum, for instance, if you can draw a trend line on a price chart and identify when price breaks important trend lines, you can easily avoid losses from major declines without having to write a single line of code or spend more than 5-10 minutes a day checking on your portfolio.
A decent book in this vein is The Visual Investor[1].
[1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Visual-Investor-Market-Trends/dp/0...
There's not a shred of evidence that technical analysis is anything but a charlatan's tool - same as trying to time the market. Technical analysis is bound to yield only losses for the investor and fees for the broker. The evidence points strongly against technical analysis as a method for building wealth - . And buying during upswings / selling during declines guarantees you lose.
Long-term value investing performs best, low cost index funds perform well, Wealthfront will underperform due to fees, and technical analysis will turn even a billionaire into a millionaire.
Long-term value investing performs best, low cost index funds perform well, Wealthfront will underperform due to fees, and technical analysis will turn even a billionaire into a millionaire.
There is plenty of charlatanism in the world of technical analysis, just as there is in the world of fundamental analysis. But you're missing a key point: "technical analysis" is not monolithic. There isn't a single set of rules and indicators, all applied the same way over the same time periods. Most investors (and traders) lose money because of lack of discipline, poor money management, etc. This is true whether technical analysis is used or not.
Instead of creating a straw man argument, let's discuss something simple: trend lines. And let's discuss the most fundamental truth about trend lines: it is absolutely impossible for the current trend to reverse without key trend lines being broken.
Don't take my word for it. Pull up a chart of the S&P 500. The bull market that ended in late 2007 was easily identified by the breaking of long-term trend lines. And the bear market that ended in 2009 was easily identified by the breaking of trend lines as well. Just by use of trend lines alone (and no other technical indicators) you could have identified key turning points in the market.
How you act upon this information, if at all, is your choice. But that has nothing to do with technical analysis. That's investment/trading strategy.
Instead of creating a straw man argument, let's discuss something simple: trend lines. And let's discuss the most fundamental truth about trend lines: it is absolutely impossible for the current trend to reverse without key trend lines being broken.
Don't take my word for it. Pull up a chart of the S&P 500. The bull market that ended in late 2007 was easily identified by the breaking of long-term trend lines. And the bear market that ended in 2009 was easily identified by the breaking of trend lines as well. Just by use of trend lines alone (and no other technical indicators) you could have identified key turning points in the market.
How you act upon this information, if at all, is your choice. But that has nothing to do with technical analysis. That's investment/trading strategy.
>The bull market that ended in late 2007 was easily identified by the breaking of long-term trend lines. And the bear market that ended in 2009 was easily identified by the breaking of trend lines as well.
Trends are broken in periods surrounding major market corrections, indeed. How many false positives are there in between, in which you're turning over your portfolio for no reason?
Trends are broken in periods surrounding major market corrections, indeed. How many false positives are there in between, in which you're turning over your portfolio for no reason?
Not all trend lines are created equal. Some are more important than others. You too are confusing technical analysis with investment/trading strategy. The breaking of a short or intermediate term trend line does not inherently call for "turning over your portfolio."
Depending on where you are in a trend, the breaking of a short-term trend line, for instance, could set up an opportunity to add to an existing position when the trend resumes.
Depending on where you are in a trend, the breaking of a short-term trend line, for instance, could set up an opportunity to add to an existing position when the trend resumes.
Ahh, you can't have it both ways. Does a simple trend line, e.g. 12 month moving average, suffice to tell you to get in or out of a stock ("the bear market that ended in 2009 was easily identified by the breaking of trend lines")? Or does it have to be the right trend line? Moreover, how do I know what trend line to choose? I can choose great trend lines with the benefit of hindsight.
Also, forgetusername's point on false positives remains critical. Breaking trend lines is only a useful if it's right most of the time.
My advice to anyone who wants to be an enterprising investor (i.e. put more time into investing and try to achieve higher returns) is to read Ben Graham's The Intelligent Investor. Instead of trading based on the emotions in the market, invest by choosing great companies that are bargains.
Also, forgetusername's point on false positives remains critical. Breaking trend lines is only a useful if it's right most of the time.
My advice to anyone who wants to be an enterprising investor (i.e. put more time into investing and try to achieve higher returns) is to read Ben Graham's The Intelligent Investor. Instead of trading based on the emotions in the market, invest by choosing great companies that are bargains.
A moving average is not a trend line. It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion if we are talking about two different things.
As for false positives, nobody reasonable will tell you that they don't exist. But again, there's a difference between short, intermediate and long-term trend lines. Even under the most unfavorable scenarios, anybody with a modicum of knowledge of trend lines would have been out of the market before the 2008 crash and back in the market by early 2010 because major trend lines were broken. Incidentally, I was one of those people.
As for your advice: there's nothing wrong with fundamental analysis. Although many people fail to make money using it (just like technical analysis), it's worth noting that quite a few savvy professionals use fundamental and technical analysis together.
As for false positives, nobody reasonable will tell you that they don't exist. But again, there's a difference between short, intermediate and long-term trend lines. Even under the most unfavorable scenarios, anybody with a modicum of knowledge of trend lines would have been out of the market before the 2008 crash and back in the market by early 2010 because major trend lines were broken. Incidentally, I was one of those people.
As for your advice: there's nothing wrong with fundamental analysis. Although many people fail to make money using it (just like technical analysis), it's worth noting that quite a few savvy professionals use fundamental and technical analysis together.
This is downvoted to light grey, but it's excellent advice. All you really need to understand are the concepts of support, resistance, momentum, and trending.
Support: a price which a significant number of market players have decided is probably the least amount the stock could be worth. That is, if the price drops to that point, they will buy. They might be wrong, but it will require an even larger number of people who think the stock is definitely worth less to make them wrong.
Resistance: the flip side of support: a price at which a significant number of market players will sell.
Momentum: the tendency of price to continue in the direction that it's going until it encounters support or resistance. Many traders attempt to profit from the short-term price swings caused by momentum. By doing so, they tend to cause the price to continue to go in that direction.
Trending: what happens when changes in the economy are reflected in the prices of stocks. Such changes don't happen instantaneously; they take time.
Momentum and trending are obviously similar, but I distinguish them in this way: momentum is mostly caused by the flow of information within the markets; trending is caused by changes in the fundamentals.
If you understand these concepts, you can see everything a long-term investor needs to see when looking at a chart.
Support: a price which a significant number of market players have decided is probably the least amount the stock could be worth. That is, if the price drops to that point, they will buy. They might be wrong, but it will require an even larger number of people who think the stock is definitely worth less to make them wrong.
Resistance: the flip side of support: a price at which a significant number of market players will sell.
Momentum: the tendency of price to continue in the direction that it's going until it encounters support or resistance. Many traders attempt to profit from the short-term price swings caused by momentum. By doing so, they tend to cause the price to continue to go in that direction.
Trending: what happens when changes in the economy are reflected in the prices of stocks. Such changes don't happen instantaneously; they take time.
Momentum and trending are obviously similar, but I distinguish them in this way: momentum is mostly caused by the flow of information within the markets; trending is caused by changes in the fundamentals.
If you understand these concepts, you can see everything a long-term investor needs to see when looking at a chart.
As much as I think the article makes great points (tax-loss harvesting seems oversold, and Vanguard is a much cheaper way to get a target date fund than Wealthfront), I gotta raise my hand here and point out the absurdity of this argument against proportional fees. Wealth management is like any business-- a combination of fixed and variable costs. And like many businesses, it amortizes those fixed costs against basically a variable fee structure because the value of the service to the customer (debatable as it may be for some investment products) is proportional to the account size.
It's not an SV vs WS thing. Nobody charges according to the marginal cost of the service. Why does Airbnb charge a percentage of the rental cost? Why does Uber get a percentage of the fare? Why does the restaurant charge me the same for a burger at 10pm as a burger at 7pm (after all, the staff are already being paid for the day and ingredients already purchased)?
It might sound good to say "hey, the software's not working any harder so the marginal cost is zero", but that doesn't work in almost any business.
> Why does the restaurant charge me the same for a burger at 10pm as a burger at 7pm (after all, the staff are already being paid for the day and ingredients already purchased)?
Actually, it's not uncommon for a food vendor to drop its prices at the end of the day, e.g. https://www.itsu.com/about/sale
That doesn't invalidate your point, though.
I'd also suggest that the risk associated with a transaction should also be factored in. The cost of processing small (e.g. $100) and large ($100,000) transactions may be the same but the potential cost to me if I drop the ball is several orders of magnitude larger.
Actually, it's not uncommon for a food vendor to drop its prices at the end of the day, e.g. https://www.itsu.com/about/sale
That doesn't invalidate your point, though.
I'd also suggest that the risk associated with a transaction should also be factored in. The cost of processing small (e.g. $100) and large ($100,000) transactions may be the same but the potential cost to me if I drop the ball is several orders of magnitude larger.
Yeah good points.
Additionally, Vanguard is making money through securities lending which is also proportional and can offset much or all of the expense ratio.
"In 2012 securities lending enhanced annual fund returns by more than 1 basis point for over 60% of Vanguard's participating funds, by more than 5 basis points for nearly a third of funds, and by more than 10 basis points for over 15% of funds."
Additionally, Vanguard is making money through securities lending which is also proportional and can offset much or all of the expense ratio.
"In 2012 securities lending enhanced annual fund returns by more than 1 basis point for over 60% of Vanguard's participating funds, by more than 5 basis points for nearly a third of funds, and by more than 10 basis points for over 15% of funds."
tax-loss harvesting is particularly valuable when combined with charitable giving.. the usual harvesting dynamic is that you are trading a deduction now for a larger gain-liability later, but in the case of charitable giving of appreciated stock there is no liability down the road but you get to keep the deduction-now.
From The little book of common sense investing by John Bogle.
"Thus, the recent era not only has failed to erode, but has nicely enhanced the lifetime record of the world’s first index fund—now known as Vanguard 500 Index Fund. Let me be specific: at a dinner on September 20, 2006, celebrating the 30th anniversary of the fund’s initial public offering, the counsel for the fund’s underwriters reported that he had purchased 1,000 shares at the original offering price of $15.00 per share—a $15,000 investment. He proudly announced that the value of his holding that evening (including shares acquired through reinvesting the fund’s dividends and distributions over the years) was $461,771. "
"Thus, the recent era not only has failed to erode, but has nicely enhanced the lifetime record of the world’s first index fund—now known as Vanguard 500 Index Fund. Let me be specific: at a dinner on September 20, 2006, celebrating the 30th anniversary of the fund’s initial public offering, the counsel for the fund’s underwriters reported that he had purchased 1,000 shares at the original offering price of $15.00 per share—a $15,000 investment. He proudly announced that the value of his holding that evening (including shares acquired through reinvesting the fund’s dividends and distributions over the years) was $461,771. "
For some absolutely insane reason I sometimes get the feeling that I can outpick a fund with individual stocks, because "Hey, I follow this whole tech world really closely! Surely I can pick some big winners!"
It has been a somewhat expensive lesson that I have absolutely no clue what's going on, but every once in a while I just can't help but try. I keep a little fun money in individual equities, and the rest now sits safely in funds. My aggregate individual funds always lose out to what has been relatively steady fund performance.
It has been a somewhat expensive lesson that I have absolutely no clue what's going on, but every once in a while I just can't help but try. I keep a little fun money in individual equities, and the rest now sits safely in funds. My aggregate individual funds always lose out to what has been relatively steady fund performance.
I suggest doing what I do: invest your time in speculative bets (startups), and invest your take-home pay in index funds.
I too enjoy gambling with my life savings.
That comes out to about 12% per year, compounded. Makes sense given the huge multi-decade bull market that began in the early 80s (2006 - 30 years = 1976).
But certainly not something you can rely on. For comparison, with a 5% annual return, you get $64k. With an 8% annual return, you get $150k.
But certainly not something you can rely on. For comparison, with a 5% annual return, you get $64k. With an 8% annual return, you get $150k.
S&P gains since inception are on the order of 11%. It is something you can rely upon (see: Trinity study on portfolio survivability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_study)
A father, who is a banker shows his son "This is our Yacht and those are our brokers''". Son asks "Dad, where are the customers' yachts?".
A book, written in 1930s, based on this quip still remains one of my favourite books about Wall street. Link: http://www.amazon.com/Where-Are-Customers-Yachts-Street/dp/0...
A book, written in 1930s, based on this quip still remains one of my favourite books about Wall street. Link: http://www.amazon.com/Where-Are-Customers-Yachts-Street/dp/0...
Wealthfront is indeed a ripoff for the well-informed.
For most folks, though, something that makes saving simple is something that will lead to HUGE gains over not having that thing in the first place.
Without Wealthfront, most people would simply let that money sit in a checking account or in a user-made nondiversified portfolio (most people don't understand the incredible benefits of diversification, including myself most days, which is why we work at startups :) ).
Therefore, I still believe the value of Wealthfront is positive, and likewise, I believe the value of most financial planners is positive.
For most folks, though, something that makes saving simple is something that will lead to HUGE gains over not having that thing in the first place.
Without Wealthfront, most people would simply let that money sit in a checking account or in a user-made nondiversified portfolio (most people don't understand the incredible benefits of diversification, including myself most days, which is why we work at startups :) ).
Therefore, I still believe the value of Wealthfront is positive, and likewise, I believe the value of most financial planners is positive.
> Wealthfront is indeed a ripoff for the well-informed.
Do you feel that this is universally true or situation-dependent? I consider myself reasonably informed and Wealthfront appears to be a strong, if not the strongest, option for my financial situation (young, most of my net worth is in a taxable account, direct indexing, regular expected capital gains to pair with tax losses).
Do you feel that this is universally true or situation-dependent? I consider myself reasonably informed and Wealthfront appears to be a strong, if not the strongest, option for my financial situation (young, most of my net worth is in a taxable account, direct indexing, regular expected capital gains to pair with tax losses).
First of all, you are probably not taking full advantage of tax-efficient accounts. Are you contributing your maximums, including back door strategies?
Second, you can do substantially better than Wealthfront with even an extremely lazy portfolio. Heck, put all of your funds into a Vanguard target-date fund (the laziest of the laziest) and you will do better than Wealthfront, with only 15 min of effort per year to rebalance.
The kind of tax loss harvesting Wealthfront does is usually a pseudo-benefit. You're usually in a better position just holding until you need distributions for retirement. On paper it sometimes works out, but only when you make assumptions that generally involve timing the market to harvest without loss while avoiding wash sale rules.
That said, if you can't be trusted or can't trust yourself to buy a simple lazy portfolio and hold for decades, then by all means pay the 0.25% annual fee to have someone else take the management keys away from you. As one of my coworkers said, Wealthfront is lazy advice -- telling someone to use Wealthfront is easy to do and usually gets that person into a better position than they otherwise would be, and requires minimal effort from me in advising them. But it is not the optimal solution out there and anyone can easily do better if they are willing to learn and capable of exerting self control.
Second, you can do substantially better than Wealthfront with even an extremely lazy portfolio. Heck, put all of your funds into a Vanguard target-date fund (the laziest of the laziest) and you will do better than Wealthfront, with only 15 min of effort per year to rebalance.
The kind of tax loss harvesting Wealthfront does is usually a pseudo-benefit. You're usually in a better position just holding until you need distributions for retirement. On paper it sometimes works out, but only when you make assumptions that generally involve timing the market to harvest without loss while avoiding wash sale rules.
That said, if you can't be trusted or can't trust yourself to buy a simple lazy portfolio and hold for decades, then by all means pay the 0.25% annual fee to have someone else take the management keys away from you. As one of my coworkers said, Wealthfront is lazy advice -- telling someone to use Wealthfront is easy to do and usually gets that person into a better position than they otherwise would be, and requires minimal effort from me in advising them. But it is not the optimal solution out there and anyone can easily do better if they are willing to learn and capable of exerting self control.
Just for my understanding, if all your investments are in a "Vanguard target-date fund" then why would you have to spend any time per year rebalancing? Isn't that what the target date funds do for you?
Have you read akeefer's comment in this thread? It contains a clear counterargument re. Wealthfront + tax optimization vs. Vanguard.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9859588
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9859588
I don't understand the three first paragraphs (about A/B testing). I install an app costing me 1 dollar and then the developer use this profit to install an app ruining him/her? What?
He's noting the irony of how punishing "your" (the developer's) margins are, vs how easily you hand your hard-fought cash over to the high-margin wealthfront.
> install an app ruining him/her?
it's a metaphor, imagining Wealthfront's fees as though it were the subscription fee for an app.
it's a metaphor, imagining Wealthfront's fees as though it were the subscription fee for an app.
I think the first three paragraphs are supposed to appeal to Silicon Valley engineers. The idea is that a lot of {Facebook, Google, etc.} employees spend their day doing a task with negligible world impact and then put their paycheck into Wealthfront for investment/retirement.
The second para says it all:
"Should he beat the odds, he’ll then take your 70 cents and plow them into another app on his phone. This app will not only charge him every day for the rest of his life, but it also increased his fee last year by over a dollar a month."
"Should he beat the odds, he’ll then take your 70 cents and plow them into another app on his phone. This app will not only charge him every day for the rest of his life, but it also increased his fee last year by over a dollar a month."
If you do want financial advice as an hourly service, it exists. In the US, look at the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors: https://www.napfa.org/.
Many provide hourly consulting, just like you'd pay an attorney or accountant.
By far the biggest risk of doing this is not having a constant presence during bear markets to coach you to stay the course. If you're actually comfortable enough in the amount of risk you've taken, this is less of an issue.
The best doc I found on where or how wealth managers can add value was written for wealth managers (by Vanguard, which provides custodial services): http://www.vanguard.com/pdf/ISGQVAA.pdf
Page 4 has the table. The biggest benefit - in their analysis, up to 1.5% of possible value added - is coaching. Deciding what's right for you depends on understanding what parts of planning and executing you're actually comfortable taking primary responsibility for.
Many provide hourly consulting, just like you'd pay an attorney or accountant.
By far the biggest risk of doing this is not having a constant presence during bear markets to coach you to stay the course. If you're actually comfortable enough in the amount of risk you've taken, this is less of an issue.
The best doc I found on where or how wealth managers can add value was written for wealth managers (by Vanguard, which provides custodial services): http://www.vanguard.com/pdf/ISGQVAA.pdf
Page 4 has the table. The biggest benefit - in their analysis, up to 1.5% of possible value added - is coaching. Deciding what's right for you depends on understanding what parts of planning and executing you're actually comfortable taking primary responsibility for.
Here's my understanding: if you use Wealthfront direct indexing, you mostly hold stocks, so you pay a minimal amount in ETF fees. This means your expense ratio is pretty close to the Wealthfront fee of 0.25%.
If you put everything in a Vanguard target retirement fund, your expense ratio is something like 0.18%. [1]
So as long as tax loss harvesting adds a tiny fraction of a percent (~0.07%) to your returns, it seems optimal to use Wealthfront, no?
[1] https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0699&...
If you put everything in a Vanguard target retirement fund, your expense ratio is something like 0.18%. [1]
So as long as tax loss harvesting adds a tiny fraction of a percent (~0.07%) to your returns, it seems optimal to use Wealthfront, no?
[1] https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0699&...
This is correct. Also, tax-loss harvesting isn't the only benefit of direct indexing. Charitable gifting of highly appreciated securities is a potentially huge benefit that direct indexing has over ETFs (even better given that it doesn't ratchet down your basis like TLH or create wash sale issues).
[deleted]
Wealthfront fee is ON TOP OF the underlying ETFs.
Wealthfront markets itself as an innovative fintech startup, but I see it as nothing but an asset mgt company that hired some developers to "prop it up".
Not to commit an ad hominem, but I don't see tech-driven founders and/or a very strong engineering culture.
https://www.wealthfront.com/management
Not to commit an ad hominem, but I don't see tech-driven founders and/or a very strong engineering culture.
https://www.wealthfront.com/management
I've worked with four of the folks on that list, including the one at the top, and would disagree pretty strongly.
I don't know much about the day-to-day culture of Wealthfront itself, but if it's anything like the teams these folks ran while I was around with them, they have a pretty rigorous mindset that applies all aspects of the product – product, design, and engineering.
My impression, just from looking at that page and knowing the four whom I know, is that it's a pretty legit blend of folks who really know finance led by strong technical product management.
I don't know much about the day-to-day culture of Wealthfront itself, but if it's anything like the teams these folks ran while I was around with them, they have a pretty rigorous mindset that applies all aspects of the product – product, design, and engineering.
My impression, just from looking at that page and knowing the four whom I know, is that it's a pretty legit blend of folks who really know finance led by strong technical product management.
I work in the finance industry and only today found out about both Wealthfront and Betterment.
Betterment is utterly awesome. Truly a product I'd expect to see from an innovative fintech startup.
Wealthfront is... not.
Betterment is utterly awesome. Truly a product I'd expect to see from an innovative fintech startup.
Wealthfront is... not.
So you just learned about Wealthfront and Betterment today and somehow you've determined that Betterment is "utterly awesome" and Wealthfront isn't? I hope that whatever your role in finance, it isn't related to due diligence.
I might've been a bit too black-and-white with my comment, let me clarify...
Betterment seems utterly awesome. Truly a product I'd expect to see from an innovative fintech startup. Wealthfront did not.
It was clear that Betterment cared about making a beautiful consumer-driven product. It was also clear that they've spent some time reimagining how personal finance works. Simplifying it.
I also can't help but note that the fact that Betterment made me so excited (it really did) so quickly probably speaks very well of it. But then again, I'm a sample of 1.
(Incidentally, I read your HN profile and rather liked the story in your 'about')
Betterment seems utterly awesome. Truly a product I'd expect to see from an innovative fintech startup. Wealthfront did not.
It was clear that Betterment cared about making a beautiful consumer-driven product. It was also clear that they've spent some time reimagining how personal finance works. Simplifying it.
I also can't help but note that the fact that Betterment made me so excited (it really did) so quickly probably speaks very well of it. But then again, I'm a sample of 1.
(Incidentally, I read your HN profile and rather liked the story in your 'about')
Yes, these days it's really difficult to credibly market yourself as an innovative company without a pair of 20-something lumbersexual founders who haxored their way into an exposed-brick office in SoMa.
If Wealthfront really wants to prove that it's tech-driven, it should stop sharing technical knowledge[1] and organize more hackathons. Preferably hackathons in which the beer and laptop stickers flow freely.
[1] http://eng.wealthfront.com/
If Wealthfront really wants to prove that it's tech-driven, it should stop sharing technical knowledge[1] and organize more hackathons. Preferably hackathons in which the beer and laptop stickers flow freely.
[1] http://eng.wealthfront.com/
> a pair of 20-something lumbersexual founders who haxored their way into an exposed-brick office in SoMa
I think this phrase should be singled out and praised for introducing the word "lumbersexual" to our tech discourse.
I think this phrase should be singled out and praised for introducing the word "lumbersexual" to our tech discourse.
Ha.. It's been around for a bit;
http://time.com/3603216/confessions-of-a-lumbersexual/
http://time.com/3603216/confessions-of-a-lumbersexual/
So about a month ago I inherited just short of $30k. I don't need it right now, and don't plan on using it until either I buy a house (maybe 5 years away?) or retire.
My plan was to invest it with Betterment, because I felt like that was the easiest and cheapest "set and forget" solution. But would there be substantial upside in going directly with a Vanguard fund instead? I'm really new to this and the convenience of a dedicated interface like Wealthfront/Betterment feels valuable to me, but if I'm leaving substantial money on the table doing that I'd rather go to the extra effort of figuring something else out.
My plan was to invest it with Betterment, because I felt like that was the easiest and cheapest "set and forget" solution. But would there be substantial upside in going directly with a Vanguard fund instead? I'm really new to this and the convenience of a dedicated interface like Wealthfront/Betterment feels valuable to me, but if I'm leaving substantial money on the table doing that I'd rather go to the extra effort of figuring something else out.
5 years is a bit of a cutoff point. Less than that you typically want a CD and more than that you want an intermediate term bond index. You could put 20k in CDs and 10k in bonds which would have the nice side effect of giving you experience.
Wow, for your own good don't listen to this guy. Just put it in equities.
YOLO? Clearly someone with no experience should just dump their 30k into equities /s. What could possibly go wrong?!
C'mon srj's suggestion isn't that bad.
I'd be tempted to put it into REITs. The main thing you want to avoid is having your investment move in the opposite direction to house prices. If the REIT goes down then it's likely that the house you were going to buy has also gone down in price.
I'd be tempted to put it into REITs. The main thing you want to avoid is having your investment move in the opposite direction to house prices. If the REIT goes down then it's likely that the house you were going to buy has also gone down in price.
What's bad about my suggestion? REITs are risky for a 5 year investment. Most are highly leveraged and have volatility similar to equities.
Go ahead and compare charts of VTSAX (Total Stock) vs VBILX (Intermediate Bond) vs VGSLX (REITs) from 2000 through today. If you need the money in 5 years you don't want that much risk.
Also it's entirely possible that average real estate values will decline while the housing market in the area the poster is looking to buy goes up.
Go ahead and compare charts of VTSAX (Total Stock) vs VBILX (Intermediate Bond) vs VGSLX (REITs) from 2000 through today. If you need the money in 5 years you don't want that much risk.
Also it's entirely possible that average real estate values will decline while the housing market in the area the poster is looking to buy goes up.
Actually the duration is a bit high on VBILX. I use Vanguard's muni/tax exempt version VWIUX, but the point is you want a bond index with a duration of around 4-5 years. Maybe I'm more conservative than most, but you don't want to risk a large drop on money you need that soon (look at the REIT losses in '08).
lol I was defending your suggestion!
To defend REITs, yes REITs lost money in 2008 but but you could also buy property cheaper in 2008/2009.
If you're going to cherry pick data then take the case where property prices double in 2016. You would expect REITs to double too (not taking into account the rent that you'd be receiving in the mean time), and you'd still be able to buy your property in five years time.
The same can't be said for uncorrelated assets like bonds/CDs/etc. They suck in highly-inflationary environments.
Also thanks for assuming I was talking about leveraged products. I wasn't.
To defend REITs, yes REITs lost money in 2008 but but you could also buy property cheaper in 2008/2009.
If you're going to cherry pick data then take the case where property prices double in 2016. You would expect REITs to double too (not taking into account the rent that you'd be receiving in the mean time), and you'd still be able to buy your property in five years time.
The same can't be said for uncorrelated assets like bonds/CDs/etc. They suck in highly-inflationary environments.
Also thanks for assuming I was talking about leveraged products. I wasn't.
Curious why you say that? Equities and intermediate term bonds are pretty low risk, equities are a huge amount of risk. Someone with a 5 year investment horizon should not be putting money into equities.
Shouldn't put all their money into equities. I would go 50/50 equities / bond fund and use $/£ cost averaging to buy in increments over say the next 12 months.
If you plan to use the money in less than 5 years, put it in a savings account t. I like capital one 360 (formerly Ing Direct), but any one will do.
The most important part of investing is knowing your time horizon--stocks or stocks and bonds are just too risky for any time.hirozion less than 5 years.
The most important part of investing is knowing your time horizon--stocks or stocks and bonds are just too risky for any time.hirozion less than 5 years.
If you plan to use the money in less than 5 years and know you will need about 30k then put it in a savings account or something of the kind.
On the other hand, if you have no specific plans for that money, and you would just like as much money as possible in 5 years' time, on average you are likely (on past performance) to have more in 5 years if you put it into the stock market than if you put it into a savings account.
(And if you know that in 5 years' time you will desperately need about 100k and have no other way of getting that money, go to a casino or something. Fortunately, that's a rather uncommon situation.)
On the other hand, if you have no specific plans for that money, and you would just like as much money as possible in 5 years' time, on average you are likely (on past performance) to have more in 5 years if you put it into the stock market than if you put it into a savings account.
(And if you know that in 5 years' time you will desperately need about 100k and have no other way of getting that money, go to a casino or something. Fortunately, that's a rather uncommon situation.)
Or just buy a bond etf that matches your horizon. If you super duper do not want any variance then just buy regular bond.
Finance is complex because there exists a product for any need.
Finance is complex because there exists a product for any need.
You may do well to checkout the FAQ of the personal finance subreddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/commontopics
https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/commontopics
The timing is crucial. You say “until you either buy a house or retire”. I’m not sure how long you have until you retire, but it’s 5 years if you buy the house. 5 years is not a long time.
Even if you start index investing at a market top, you’ll probably do well over longer timeframes, but may do poorly in short intervals.
Even if you start index investing at a market top, you’ll probably do well over longer timeframes, but may do poorly in short intervals.
OK I don't know shit about investing/financing and would like to change that. Where do I start? I read the article and nod my head and go, "OK ETFs!" But then I go and there are tons of them. Is the one he suggested the one I'm suppose to go with regardless?
In typical chicken-egg fashion there is no better teacher than having skin in the game, but just make sure you know what you're doing before you jump in.
Personally I tend to encourage people to read Bogleheads' Guide to Investing first. That should equip you with everything you need in order to get your feet wet.
Then, while you're checking your investments every day (exactly the way the book tells you not to do), start to read as much as you can about Permanent Portfolio. The reason I recommend this is because it allows you to learn the theory of (and indeed watch, if you decide to build your own Permanent Portfolio) different asset classes, and how they move depending on various macroeconomic factors.
Finally, if you want to start stock picking I'd recommend getting started with Peter Lynch's books.
Personally I tend to encourage people to read Bogleheads' Guide to Investing first. That should equip you with everything you need in order to get your feet wet.
Then, while you're checking your investments every day (exactly the way the book tells you not to do), start to read as much as you can about Permanent Portfolio. The reason I recommend this is because it allows you to learn the theory of (and indeed watch, if you decide to build your own Permanent Portfolio) different asset classes, and how they move depending on various macroeconomic factors.
Finally, if you want to start stock picking I'd recommend getting started with Peter Lynch's books.
My favorite is _A Random Walk Down Wall Street_ by Burton G. Malkiel, the cofounder of Vanguard. Dispels a tremendous number of myths; at the end of the day you'll learn to KISS.
http://amzn.com/0393340740
http://amzn.com/0393340740
Incidentally, Malkiel is currently the Chief Investment Officer of Wealthfront.
A common advice that I'm yet to follow myself is to start by reading sidebars on /r/investing and /r/personalfinance specifically their wiki and FAQ.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/investing/wiki/faq
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/index
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/investing/wiki/faq
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/index
I found William Bernstein's books to be a great intro to index investing.
"The four pillars of investing" "The intelligent asset allocator" - more technical
The Boglehead wiki is also fantastic.
"The four pillars of investing" "The intelligent asset allocator" - more technical
The Boglehead wiki is also fantastic.
Go and read the intelligent investor by Graham (who taught Warren Buffet)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0060555661
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0060555661
So, others have said it, but to reiterate:
The reddit personal finance sub forum, read the sidebar
Boglheads.org
A random walk down wall street by Malkiel
Those three resources will be sufficient to put you ahead for retirement investing without being ripped off.
The reddit personal finance sub forum, read the sidebar
Boglheads.org
A random walk down wall street by Malkiel
Those three resources will be sufficient to put you ahead for retirement investing without being ripped off.
Read "The Intelligent Investor"
Calm, mature advice for investing that has stayed true for over 50 years.
Calm, mature advice for investing that has stayed true for over 50 years.
And if you don't have the time to read, listen to the audiobook online https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoCow6DsDaA.
Some good books to get you started:
* the smartest investment book you'll ever read
* the four pillars of investing
* The Millionaire Next Door
* If You Can
* the smartest investment book you'll ever read
* the four pillars of investing
* The Millionaire Next Door
* If You Can
Let's say we kill proportional fee and replace it with a fixed fee. Well, then people with lower balances will end up most likely paying more than they do now. Another issue, it is proportionally harder to execute a larger portfolio than a smaller one. So, proportional fee makes sense. Having said that, yes, it is true that it is not clear to me why as a Vanguard customer I should switch part of my portfolio to Wealthfront.
The only thing any investor can control with any certainty is fees and taxes, so you might as well focus your effort on minimizing these. For the most part, Vanguard funds are the best at this that I know of.
Vanguard definitely led the way, but Fidelity (maybe others) has low fee funds similar to Vanguard. Last time I checked, Fidelity looked like they priced their funds by doing Vanguard price minus .01 point.
Really? This is quite new and contradicts that: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/best-target-date-funds-fide...
The article ignores the fact that Fidelity has passively managed target date index funds as well:
FFFHX 2050 Actively Managed @ 0.75%: https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/31579...
FIPFX 2050 Index Fund @ 0.24/0.16: https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/31579...
I use FIPFX in an IRA, though I had previously used the managed one before realizing it… so perhaps there's some deviousness to them being harder to find, but I ultimately don't think you can go wrong with either Fidelity or Vanguard. My 401k was w/ Fido so I stayed there, and the mobile apps and website are generally nice than what I've seen of VG but again, they are both good options if VG probably being slightly better fund wise (though not without some worse aspects either, like customer support or physical locations)
As for WF/Betterments etc, I've thought about it, but I think that I will just keep my toes in Fidelity's waters rather than spread all my financial information around. It's probably unfounded, but I'd rather stick with something more proven with my savings… as in something already financially stable and managing orders of magnitude more money than the upstarts, not that I don't root on their attempts to innovate.
FFFHX 2050 Actively Managed @ 0.75%: https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/31579...
FIPFX 2050 Index Fund @ 0.24/0.16: https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/31579...
I use FIPFX in an IRA, though I had previously used the managed one before realizing it… so perhaps there's some deviousness to them being harder to find, but I ultimately don't think you can go wrong with either Fidelity or Vanguard. My 401k was w/ Fido so I stayed there, and the mobile apps and website are generally nice than what I've seen of VG but again, they are both good options if VG probably being slightly better fund wise (though not without some worse aspects either, like customer support or physical locations)
As for WF/Betterments etc, I've thought about it, but I think that I will just keep my toes in Fidelity's waters rather than spread all my financial information around. It's probably unfounded, but I'd rather stick with something more proven with my savings… as in something already financially stable and managing orders of magnitude more money than the upstarts, not that I don't root on their attempts to innovate.
Not all funds obviously. I also use a boggle head portfolio so the target date funds are not much interest. For example, the total stock market index from Fidelity and Vanguard.
FSTMX .10% http://financials.morningstar.com/fund/expense.html?t=FSTMX&...
VTSMX .17% http://financials.morningstar.com/fund/expense.html?t=VTSMX&...
FSTMX .10% http://financials.morningstar.com/fund/expense.html?t=FSTMX&...
VTSMX .17% http://financials.morningstar.com/fund/expense.html?t=VTSMX&...
Why not the ETF version (VTI) of VTSMX that has only 5bp ER?
Also a great choice if in an account that allows ETF purchases. The point was VG forced much of the industry to at least try to offer lower cost index funds, and others have reluctantly followed.
Schwab has one with a .04%. http://etfdb.com/etf/SCHB/
Schwab has one with a .04%. http://etfdb.com/etf/SCHB/
Vanguard wins in the fee category, but from a tax standpoint, direct indexing wins by a wide margin.
For the right person, there seems to be more benefits to direct indexing than are indicated in this article. Tax-loss harvesting is one potential benefit, but so are things like charitable gifting. Anyone who is in a high marginal tax bracket, maintains a substantial portfolio in a taxable account, and gives a considerable amount to charities can receive substantial benefits from direct indexing.
Instead of your gifting being limited to the average appreciation of all stocks within a given index (as is the case with an ETF), you can pick out the stocks with the largest gains to give to charities. Unlike tax-loss harvesting, this type of tax strategy does not ratchet down your basis (thus deferring larger capital gains for the future) or create any wash sale issues (so you don't need to take the risk of not holding a particular security for a period of time).
Instead of your gifting being limited to the average appreciation of all stocks within a given index (as is the case with an ETF), you can pick out the stocks with the largest gains to give to charities. Unlike tax-loss harvesting, this type of tax strategy does not ratchet down your basis (thus deferring larger capital gains for the future) or create any wash sale issues (so you don't need to take the risk of not holding a particular security for a period of time).
[insert whynotboth.gif]
Seriously, though, it seems like it wouldn't be too difficult to market a "lesser of x% or $50" type of product?
> Another issue, it is proportionally harder to execute a larger portfolio than a smaller one.
Is this really true, on the individual scale? Especially for something like Wealthfront where all the investors as basically "lumped in" together anyway?
Seriously, though, it seems like it wouldn't be too difficult to market a "lesser of x% or $50" type of product?
> Another issue, it is proportionally harder to execute a larger portfolio than a smaller one.
Is this really true, on the individual scale? Especially for something like Wealthfront where all the investors as basically "lumped in" together anyway?
Key point: 99.9% of US individual investors would be wise to make a Vanguard Life Strategy or Target Retirement fund a core holding.
Otherwise, the screed was a little nasty (a bit nastier than the Wealthfront post).
Otherwise, the screed was a little nasty (a bit nastier than the Wealthfront post).
Here is a shot at a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the sum of fees paid in his first example. I hope I haven't misunderstood.
var gain = 1.08; var fee = 0.0025; var feeSum = 0; var s = 100000;
for (var i = 0; i < 35; i++) { s *= (gain - fee); feeSum *= gain; feeSum += s * fee; if ((i + 1) % 5 == 0) console.log('year: ' + (i + 1) + ', saved: ' + s + ', fees: ' + feeSum);};
year: 5, saved: 145240.0514760841, fees: 1823.9448097195082
year: 10, saved: 210946.72552775557, fees: 5329.071699986484
year: 15, saved: 306379.13274362596, fees: 11677.706523607205
year: 20, saved: 444985.2101088223, fees: 22746.568357507604
year: 25, saved: 646296.7482230144, fees: 41538.4561823357
year: 30, saved: 938681.7298073637, fees: 72821.71593023202
year: 35, saved: 1363341.8275688116, fees: 124120.0285076505Has anyone seen actual performance of Weathfront portfolios? You would think people would publish their results, but they've been hard to find.
Be aware that published results are heavily skewed, and are sampling bias towards the successful portfolios. Actively managed funds do outperform the market from time-to-time, and they do get published. However, not the same portfolios (year-over-year), not the same fund managers, not the same issuers...
WealthFront and Vanguard and others who do passive fund management: they do get about market average. Not newsworthy, except that it is better than every other alternative on average.
WealthFront and Vanguard and others who do passive fund management: they do get about market average. Not newsworthy, except that it is better than every other alternative on average.
Here you go - with risk level 6: http://i.imgur.com/5nchgSq.png
This compares to 14.4% for VFIAX (Vanguard 500) in the same time period.
In addition to the lower return, it's 0.37% in fees compared to 0.05%.
This compares to 14.4% for VFIAX (Vanguard 500) in the same time period.
In addition to the lower return, it's 0.37% in fees compared to 0.05%.
[deleted]
And the 500 index has a lower return from being top heavy. You would have gotten even better ROI with a broad market index like VTI.
These are not my only two investment vehicles.
As an anecdote, I've had some money in both Wealthfront and Betterment for the past 2 years. Both seem to be performing about the same, though betterment has better (but still very lacking) metrics on performance. They both show you what your money has done, but since I didn't deposit into both of them exactly the same amounts at exactly the same time every time, I can't compare them. Betterment at least shows some basic metrics about the time-weighted return over given periods in addition to your actual return, though you can't put in custom time windows. And of course, neither show you total fees you've paid in a time period.
The time-weighted rate of return on my betterment allocation of 80% stocks/ 20% bonds is -0.9% in the past 12 months and 12.6% total since May 2013 when I opened it.
By comparison the Vanguard 500 fund VFINX is up 3.8% in the past 12 months and 22.6% since May 2013 and looks like it has a 0.17% fee. So, it definitely does seem better than Betterment in every way. Meanwhile the S&P is up 4.6% in the past 12 months and up 23.8% since May 2013. Betterment and Wealthfront are very exposed to foreign markets, which somewhat ironically have been doing worse than the S&P for basically the whole time these services have existed yet they seem to be growing fast.
The time-weighted rate of return on my betterment allocation of 80% stocks/ 20% bonds is -0.9% in the past 12 months and 12.6% total since May 2013 when I opened it.
By comparison the Vanguard 500 fund VFINX is up 3.8% in the past 12 months and 22.6% since May 2013 and looks like it has a 0.17% fee. So, it definitely does seem better than Betterment in every way. Meanwhile the S&P is up 4.6% in the past 12 months and up 23.8% since May 2013. Betterment and Wealthfront are very exposed to foreign markets, which somewhat ironically have been doing worse than the S&P for basically the whole time these services have existed yet they seem to be growing fast.
You're not doing tax loss harvesting in both portfolios are you? There are tax implications to that.
Also, comparing returns on different portfolios in different services is meaningless. You could have had a bond-weighted portfolio in one service and a stock-weighted portfolio in the other; saying that one service is better than the other because it had better returns makes no sense. The service you use can't possibly influence the performance of its underlying funds.
You should compare them on factors like features offered, ease of use, fees, customer service, etc.
Also, comparing returns on different portfolios in different services is meaningless. You could have had a bond-weighted portfolio in one service and a stock-weighted portfolio in the other; saying that one service is better than the other because it had better returns makes no sense. The service you use can't possibly influence the performance of its underlying funds.
You should compare them on factors like features offered, ease of use, fees, customer service, etc.
17.4% since early 2013, risk level 7.5. http://i.imgur.com/I9SDElU.png
I don't think the number includes tax deferrals from loss harvesting. For example in 2014 I "lost" (harvested) about $40k -- note that my account ended in the black in 2014 -- that I paired with a short-term capital gain (read: high-tax gain), deferring those taxes and letting them compound until the far future when I am hopefully in a lower tax bracket.
I don't think the number includes tax deferrals from loss harvesting. For example in 2014 I "lost" (harvested) about $40k -- note that my account ended in the black in 2014 -- that I paired with a short-term capital gain (read: high-tax gain), deferring those taxes and letting them compound until the far future when I am hopefully in a lower tax bracket.
10.9% since October 2013. Risk tolerance level 10.
Just look at the performance of underlying ETFs.
So Wealthfront is for people who can't open their own Vanguard account and set up automated transfers/investments?
There's a PBS video about this. It also talk about Vanguard being a very good mutual fund and every other mutual funds are making bank off of you through fees.
The video also advocate either Vanguard mutual funds or ETF.
The video also advocate either Vanguard mutual funds or ETF.
Yes, Vanguard is way ahead in this. However, if you’re not American, it’s not always the best choice, as your returns may be lower because of tax issues.
This post kind of misses the main point of services like Wealthfront. You're paying 0.25% in exchange for automatic rebalancing, asset class diversification, and tax optimization. If the combination of those factors is going to increase your yearly return by 0.25% or more (say, from 6.8% to 7.2%), it's worth it. If they won't, it's not.
It's silly to focus entirely on the fee aspect: the point of using Wealthfront is not because it's lower-cost, it's because you expect it to be better-performing from a total-return perspective. They may oversell themselves, and that's a valid criticism, but the OP fails to really analyze the raison d'etre of Wealthfront as a service. Comparing it to a single Vanguard ETF is not a proper comparison.
The Vanguard target retirement fund for 2035, for example, includes four underlying ETFs (US stock, international stock, US bonds, international bonds), whereas Wealthfront portfolios typically have more like six or seven asset classes (differentiating between developed and emerging international markets, and adding in natural resources and real estate). Left to my own devices, I don't have the time or inclination to do the research necessary to do that sort of additional asset diversification myself, determining the ideal allocation and then avoiding too much drift while not incurring too much tax. I also don't have the time to deal with tax loss harvesting, which might not matter for retirement accounts, but does make a difference for taxable accounts: you're likely incurring some taxation issues when it comes to portfolio rebalances, for example, since that necessarily involves asset sales. If you have $100k in wealthfront, you're paying $250/year in fees. If tax loss harvesting can only harvest $1k in losses during the year that offset (or at least avoid) $1k in capital gains, that still pays for the wealthfront fees by itself (if you assume 15% federal and 10% CA state tax on long-term capital gains). So, sure, the fees you pay wealthfront compound over time, but so does the money you pay in taxes. (You do eventually pay the taxes on that gain, of course, but the money you save now compounds over time, so you still come out significantly ahead).
So the question is: does additional asset class diversification plus tax optimization yield at least a 0.25% increase in your total return (net of taxes and fees) in an average year? I believe it does in my case, hence why I have my money with them. It's not because I'm some idiot taken in by slick marketing who can't do math and doesn't know about Vanguard ETFs: Wealthfront's core market is really people who can do math and understand what they're getting for their 0.25%.
Similarly, you can quibble over asset-based fees over fixed fees, but that also misses the point: as long as they make me more money than I pay them, I come out ahead. If I come out ahead, why would I be complaining? If I don't come out ahead, then there's still no point in complaining: just don't use the service. Capitalism at its finest.
Again, it's sad that the OP and most of the comments in this thread don't even attempt to tackle the real value proposition here. Just saying "Stick it in a Vanguard ETF and you'll pay less in fees" is not at all addressing whether or not the core value proposition is valid.
It's silly to focus entirely on the fee aspect: the point of using Wealthfront is not because it's lower-cost, it's because you expect it to be better-performing from a total-return perspective. They may oversell themselves, and that's a valid criticism, but the OP fails to really analyze the raison d'etre of Wealthfront as a service. Comparing it to a single Vanguard ETF is not a proper comparison.
The Vanguard target retirement fund for 2035, for example, includes four underlying ETFs (US stock, international stock, US bonds, international bonds), whereas Wealthfront portfolios typically have more like six or seven asset classes (differentiating between developed and emerging international markets, and adding in natural resources and real estate). Left to my own devices, I don't have the time or inclination to do the research necessary to do that sort of additional asset diversification myself, determining the ideal allocation and then avoiding too much drift while not incurring too much tax. I also don't have the time to deal with tax loss harvesting, which might not matter for retirement accounts, but does make a difference for taxable accounts: you're likely incurring some taxation issues when it comes to portfolio rebalances, for example, since that necessarily involves asset sales. If you have $100k in wealthfront, you're paying $250/year in fees. If tax loss harvesting can only harvest $1k in losses during the year that offset (or at least avoid) $1k in capital gains, that still pays for the wealthfront fees by itself (if you assume 15% federal and 10% CA state tax on long-term capital gains). So, sure, the fees you pay wealthfront compound over time, but so does the money you pay in taxes. (You do eventually pay the taxes on that gain, of course, but the money you save now compounds over time, so you still come out significantly ahead).
So the question is: does additional asset class diversification plus tax optimization yield at least a 0.25% increase in your total return (net of taxes and fees) in an average year? I believe it does in my case, hence why I have my money with them. It's not because I'm some idiot taken in by slick marketing who can't do math and doesn't know about Vanguard ETFs: Wealthfront's core market is really people who can do math and understand what they're getting for their 0.25%.
Similarly, you can quibble over asset-based fees over fixed fees, but that also misses the point: as long as they make me more money than I pay them, I come out ahead. If I come out ahead, why would I be complaining? If I don't come out ahead, then there's still no point in complaining: just don't use the service. Capitalism at its finest.
Again, it's sad that the OP and most of the comments in this thread don't even attempt to tackle the real value proposition here. Just saying "Stick it in a Vanguard ETF and you'll pay less in fees" is not at all addressing whether or not the core value proposition is valid.
> whereas Wealthfront portfolios typically have more like six or seven asset classes
Why does increasing the number of asset classes guarantee a higher overall return? Is there any proof or intuition? Will increasing the number to 10 asset classes guarantee that you will consistently outperform VOO or VTI or VUG?
Why does increasing the number of asset classes guarantee a higher overall return? Is there any proof or intuition? Will increasing the number to 10 asset classes guarantee that you will consistently outperform VOO or VTI or VUG?
Because to some extent the asset classes are uncorrelated. This is the basis of Modern Portfolio Theory, and the reason you don't just dump everything into the highest-return class (e.g., stocks).
For a simplified model, check out Kelly gambling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion
For a simplified model, check out Kelly gambling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion
Interesting, I did not know about that.
So with that logic, shouldn't Betterment with its 12 asset classes and 0.15% fees for >$100k invested be more optimal?
So with that logic, shouldn't Betterment with its 12 asset classes and 0.15% fees for >$100k invested be more optimal?
Maybe. More asset classes shouldn't hurt, although at some point they may not help much (new ones may be highly correlated to some combination of the previous ones) and lower fees are nice. For bigger portfolios WF's single-stock approach may add enough value to compensate for these. I'm sure both companies have simulations proving they're better...
Looking only at the number of ETFs can be deceiving. Let's say that I hold a total US stock market index. This may be one ETF, but I still hold funds within all 9 Morningstar style boxes. You could break this into 9 different ETFs, (LCV, LCC, LCG, MCV, MCC, MCG, SCV, SCC, SCG), but that doesn't mean you are any better diversified. In fact, holding more underlying ETFs can create tax inefficiencies as indices reconstitute themselves (e.g., a SCG stock may grown to be a MCG stock. A total market index doesn't necessarily need to make any trades to reflect this change, but the SCG fund will need to sell the stock and the MCG fund will need to buy it).
Wealthfront has an in-depth explanation of how they use modern portfolio theory to determine their portfolio construction (including how they select asset classes): https://research.wealthfront.com/whitepapers/investment-meth...
You can go to any number of retirement planning sites and use their tools to construct the same portfolio. Why not just buy the underlying funds?
I answered your original question and you responded with a completely different question.
Re. this question, it is addressed in the Wealthfront FAQ: https://pages.wealthfront.com/faq/
> What’s to keep me from investing $10,000 with you and then mimicking trades for my $250,000 portfolio at a discount broker?
> Nothing. But that kind of sounds like a pain in the neck when we only charge you an annual advisory fee of 0.25% (on assets over $10,000) to take care of all the trades in your account, as well as the periodic rebalancing and daily tax-loss harvesting. That being said, you are welcome to copy anything we do if you would rather do it yourself.
Re. this question, it is addressed in the Wealthfront FAQ: https://pages.wealthfront.com/faq/
> What’s to keep me from investing $10,000 with you and then mimicking trades for my $250,000 portfolio at a discount broker?
> Nothing. But that kind of sounds like a pain in the neck when we only charge you an annual advisory fee of 0.25% (on assets over $10,000) to take care of all the trades in your account, as well as the periodic rebalancing and daily tax-loss harvesting. That being said, you are welcome to copy anything we do if you would rather do it yourself.
Can't upvote enough.
The legit disagreement seems to be between WF's approach and the Bogleheads argument that you only need three funds. I lean toward the former but haven't been satisfied with any of the analysis around this honestly.
The legit disagreement seems to be between WF's approach and the Bogleheads argument that you only need three funds. I lean toward the former but haven't been satisfied with any of the analysis around this honestly.
I 100% agree and have some money with Wealthfront for the exact same reason. I did the math, ran the models, and come out ahead. Thanks for taking the time to write what I wanted to say :)
Did you come out ahead for all possible risk numbers or was it just for a range? Isn't there some inherent "gambling" involved in choosing a risk number?
I've often wondered about precisely the author's issue – why do wealthfront, betterment, et. al. charge a percentage of assets under management? Is it just that no competitor has offered a flat rate yet, or is there intrinsically more work involved in trading larger sums?
To this one point:
> All these cases neglect to mention that you will probably only see the maximal gain if you are maximally messing up already, by needlessly churning your account to generate capital gains. As Vanguard’s founder advises: Don’t just do something; stand there.
The author is listed as "Former Director of Product @ Facebook". If he received a portion of his compensation in Facebook stock, he needed to sell out of that position regularly to avoid being over invested. That should have had generated more in capital gains than tax loss harvesting could offset.
To this one point:
> All these cases neglect to mention that you will probably only see the maximal gain if you are maximally messing up already, by needlessly churning your account to generate capital gains. As Vanguard’s founder advises: Don’t just do something; stand there.
The author is listed as "Former Director of Product @ Facebook". If he received a portion of his compensation in Facebook stock, he needed to sell out of that position regularly to avoid being over invested. That should have had generated more in capital gains than tax loss harvesting could offset.
I think the sub heading makes it clear on author's issue - Weatherfront's real costs. While they write tons of stuff on how they are anti Wall Street and are cheaper options, they actually are misleading people with standalone numbers instead of showing them compounded ones. A trick which is prevalent in Wall Street companies.
> To this point
>> All these cases neglect to mention that you will probably only see the maximal gain if you are maximally messing up already, by needlessly churning your account to generate capital gains. As Vanguard’s founder advises: Don’t just do something; stand there.
It talks about the comparison Wealthfront seems to make. As he says in the earlier para:
> They appear to reach these numbers simply by adding the maximum possible tax alpha to VTI’s return.
A simple backtesting shows wealthfront shows them they would have come out ahead. What it doesn't consider is achieving it in realtime will require a lot of other trades to be done.
Example, a company being removed and new one added to S&P. This will cause a change in weightage and calculation.
In an index fund, as you have bought the component you need not bother with the churn of companies. While in "direct indexing" you will have to actively manage the portfolio and adjust it accordingly. This will cause brokerage and fees applied to your account for the trades.
> To this point
>> All these cases neglect to mention that you will probably only see the maximal gain if you are maximally messing up already, by needlessly churning your account to generate capital gains. As Vanguard’s founder advises: Don’t just do something; stand there.
It talks about the comparison Wealthfront seems to make. As he says in the earlier para:
> They appear to reach these numbers simply by adding the maximum possible tax alpha to VTI’s return.
A simple backtesting shows wealthfront shows them they would have come out ahead. What it doesn't consider is achieving it in realtime will require a lot of other trades to be done.
Example, a company being removed and new one added to S&P. This will cause a change in weightage and calculation.
In an index fund, as you have bought the component you need not bother with the churn of companies. While in "direct indexing" you will have to actively manage the portfolio and adjust it accordingly. This will cause brokerage and fees applied to your account for the trades.
I think the idea is that it aligns incentives. If your adviser makes more money the more money you have, it's in their interest to make you more money. Compare e.g. letting agents, recruiters, ...
More cynically, it means you're cheaper when your potential clients are just starting out, and people tend to stick with the investment manager they started with.
More cynically, it means you're cheaper when your potential clients are just starting out, and people tend to stick with the investment manager they started with.
Not entirely aligned since it's a % of assets and not the % of gain. They will make money even if they're losing you money.
Because why not charge high prices if suckers pay them.
There are something like 10 robo advisors. If a competitor could undercut wealthfront and get more business, why wouldn't they?
if the increase in businesses does not offset the decrease in prices
lets say you charge X instead of Y%
now assume that on average, others are charging 2X after calculating individual percentages
if you only get 30% more clients charging X instead of 2X you're actually making less money.
lets say you charge X instead of Y%
now assume that on average, others are charging 2X after calculating individual percentages
if you only get 30% more clients charging X instead of 2X you're actually making less money.
The entire VC-based economy is designed around using capital investment to buy time to grow your audience with low proces.
> the financial advisor who treats his esteemed clients to FREE! luxury box seats at the big game (* when you pay him $10,000 a year).
Always be suspicious of lavish gifts from someone who's services you employ... often means you're overpaying. We see this in real estate all the time. A broker who just made $80k on a week's work will often send their client a $200 gift card or take them out to a fancy dinner to "celebrate" (and alleviate guilt?).
Always be suspicious of lavish gifts from someone who's services you employ... often means you're overpaying. We see this in real estate all the time. A broker who just made $80k on a week's work will often send their client a $200 gift card or take them out to a fancy dinner to "celebrate" (and alleviate guilt?).
The author's points about advertising and hidden fees are well-taken.
Regarding "Stop charging proportional fees": if Vanguard, who charges proportional fees, is operating "at cost" as the author claims, then what is all that extra money paying for? The implication is that technology could be a game-changer because it unlinks the size of the effort from the size of the effect, but surely that is already happening with Vanguard's 12-digit funds.
Regarding "Stop charging proportional fees": if Vanguard, who charges proportional fees, is operating "at cost" as the author claims, then what is all that extra money paying for? The implication is that technology could be a game-changer because it unlinks the size of the effort from the size of the effect, but surely that is already happening with Vanguard's 12-digit funds.
Does anyone here use wisebanyan? They claim $0 fees and still do the robo advising (i.e., solving the portfolio allocation problem).
Wealthfront should compete not just on trying to execute the same old indices, but on creating new indices on the fly. For example, REIT Index Sans Illinois, Emerging Markets Sans Russia, etc. Infinite number of possible index portfolios. Anyone want to build that? send me a message
Check out https://www.folioinvesting.com They allow you to create your own "index funds" as well as select from a list of existing folios. Flat monthly fee.
While the idea is interesting, I am curious what would be the market for a newer index? This combined with creating and maintaining a market to run this index, it will be an expensive proposition.
Why does it have to be expensive ? Imagine you live in Texas and already have high exposure to Texas real estate. It's reasonable to be able to construct a index fund ex texas real estate, as an example. Better tailor your investment options to your actual risks
Not from the customer front but on the operations front.
To clarify, even if you have an index, there must be enough liquidity to run a market where your index is trading. In the early days with less liquidity the company will need to pick up some of the orders. This at the end depending on the value proposition might turn out to be costly.
To clarify, even if you have an index, there must be enough liquidity to run a market where your index is trading. In the early days with less liquidity the company will need to pick up some of the orders. This at the end depending on the value proposition might turn out to be costly.
US REIT index Sans Texas would be less costly because you would have fewer stocks to trade
Ah ok. I see what you meant when Folio was mentioned. I was thinking something else. I was building something like that but don't have the tech capabilities so had stopped.
That exists (at least if I understand your ask):
https://www.folioinvesting.com
https://www.folioinvesting.com
I believe that's what Motif is doing.
Yes. But with absolutely insane commission levels. I would like a Vanguard like product that lets me do it
[deleted]
I ran some numbers and Blake's idea could bring the cost down by 40-60%
https://medium.com/@bluf/the-robotraders-versus-blake-ross-a...
https://medium.com/@bluf/the-robotraders-versus-blake-ross-a...
> the kindly rabbi who performed your bris
mohel performs a bris, not a rabbi
> It’s why you’re receiving 2% cash back on your credit card while your neighbor pays 12% on his.
This is mostly because merchants pay a fee, and the CC company kicks it back to you.
> I’m not asking why Wealthfront helps itself to such margins, which is obvious and perfectly normal, but rather why the market bears it
AirBnB and Uber and real estate agents do the same thing [price-proportional fees, not cost-proportional fees or flat fees]...
Anyway, it's not as bad Blake rants about. Flat fees hurt the least-wealthy customers.
1. It's progressive. Wealthier customers pay more. That's good for sociery.
2. It's not inherently a scam, anymore than airline tickets or home sales. Ultimately, they compete in the market, and have to price competitively. Companies will lower prices to attract customers (if competition arrives), but maintain their profit to stay in business.
mohel performs a bris, not a rabbi
> It’s why you’re receiving 2% cash back on your credit card while your neighbor pays 12% on his.
This is mostly because merchants pay a fee, and the CC company kicks it back to you.
> I’m not asking why Wealthfront helps itself to such margins, which is obvious and perfectly normal, but rather why the market bears it
AirBnB and Uber and real estate agents do the same thing [price-proportional fees, not cost-proportional fees or flat fees]...
Anyway, it's not as bad Blake rants about. Flat fees hurt the least-wealthy customers.
1. It's progressive. Wealthier customers pay more. That's good for sociery.
2. It's not inherently a scam, anymore than airline tickets or home sales. Ultimately, they compete in the market, and have to price competitively. Companies will lower prices to attract customers (if competition arrives), but maintain their profit to stay in business.
Has someone created a web site that uploads your portfolio and makes tax loss harvesting suggestions for a fixed fee?Competition is what brings prices down.
I would love to see the proportional fee killed. Even Vanguard charges this (though their fees are smaller, they are still a percentage). But the fact is the effort required to manage $10M is not 10x the effort required to manage $1M (especially with software). So why do we pay 10x as much? Because we always have!
That's the opportunity in front of Silicon Valley with regards to wealth management.
That's the opportunity in front of Silicon Valley with regards to wealth management.
Vanguard does reduce the fee in many of its funds as the investment amount becomes larger. The tiers are Investor, Admiral, Institutional, and Institutional Plus. Some of these you can get in a 401k plan negotiated by your employer. VIIIX for example is an S&P fund with a 0.02% expense ratio.
Yes, I know about this.
I realized after posting the comment that the way to get a fixed price index fund (where the fee is not tied to the asset size) is just to buy stocks directly. Once you pay the one time commission, you own the stock forever with no yearly management fee.
Of course, that comes with other costs (you have to adjust yourself when the index changes, commission when you sell, etc).
I realized after posting the comment that the way to get a fixed price index fund (where the fee is not tied to the asset size) is just to buy stocks directly. Once you pay the one time commission, you own the stock forever with no yearly management fee.
Of course, that comes with other costs (you have to adjust yourself when the index changes, commission when you sell, etc).
Which index? If it's an S&P500 one that's 500 stocks to buy. What happens when companies enter the S&P500 or exit it? You would need to trade again which means more commission fees.
What if one company in the index grows considerably while another one falls in value? Do you rebalance between those two? More commissions. Index funds hide all of this and I would guess it winds up cheaper particularly if you include effort.
What if one company in the index grows considerably while another one falls in value? Do you rebalance between those two? More commissions. Index funds hide all of this and I would guess it winds up cheaper particularly if you include effort.
I wonder what Wealthfront's costs are per client per year. Do their costs have a variable component, or is a flat $X/year per account?
Not sure that 100,000k account for $20 a month is that good a deal. I have about that in my UK TD ISA and don't pay any account charges
>There are other options available that would enable you to stop working years earlier
The only real option that enables people, on average, to stop working is automation.
The only real option that enables people, on average, to stop working is automation.
[deleted]
one of my favorite quotes:
"Here it is: If you open a retirement account, and you invest some of your paycheck each month into a Vanguard Target Retirement Fund, and you just…leave it…you just leave it right there until retirement…
…you don’t do anything when the folks on CNBC announce that the sky is falling; you don’t do anything when Cousin Eddy calls from a secure underground bunker in the badlands and says that the fed is printing money and it’s time to liquidate and ammo up; you don’t think it’s a sign that your parrot said “fuhgeddaboutit” but you thought she said “get a nugget” and surely that must mean a gold nugget? and you looked online and noticed that the price of shiny yellow metal was crashing and wait your parrot is also yellow and I’ll be damned if that isn’t a sign to buy…
… no, if you just leave it there to compound over decades…"