Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Launch HN: Double (YC W24) – Index Investing with 0% Expense Ratios

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 434 posts

Re: Launch HN: Double (YC W24) – Index Investing with 0% Expense Ratios

#201

Post by kccqzy »

koolba wrote: post #67

How do you intend to make enough money to stay a going concern? Charging $1/mo adds up to peanuts and peanuts will not paying the salaries needed for running a highly regulated industry like this. What are some examples for real world tax loss harvesting of this versus just rotating between things like VTI, SCHB, and ITOT? I can’t imagine it’s going to be meaningfully more tax savings versus the monumental pain in th…

Retail brokerages earn most of their money from uninvested cash from their customers. An easy strategy is to force customers to keep a few percent of AUM as cash.

Re: Launch HN: Double (YC W24) – Index Investing with 0% Expense Ratios

#202

Post by schmidtleonard »

jacobr1 wrote: post #171
chasebank wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, FDIC only covers the deposits if the underlying bank fails, not the fintec layer built on top of it. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

So how does it work now with bank fraud or technical issues? Ignore the fintech layer for a moment, just consider a bank like Chase or Wells Fargo. If their mobile app causes an erroneous transfer, or the backend removes money from your account or maybe doesn't give you the expected interest amount your saving account due to a bug ... what is the recourse? For a reputable company, even if their support is a hassle, t…

One time a bank tried to stop me from moving my money to a new bank. It was reasonable for security to be high, of course, but not prohibitively so. After an in-person visit and a 30 day waiting period they "rejected my request," no reason given, no response to my request for a reason given, and told me to try again in 90 days.

Someone on HN suggested getting the comptroller involved. I think I found a state office called the comptroller, but it might have been the federal one? In any case, the moment they showed up in a conference call the bank transferred me to someone important, stopped fooling around, and made the transfer happen. The person at the comptroller office never got past the asking questions stage, but the bank's behavior changed immediately in a way that suggested they recognized the smell of authority. So that's my keyword suggestion: comptroller.

Re: Launch HN: Double (YC W24) – Index Investing with 0% Expense Ratios

#204

Post by dboreham »

freeone3000 wrote: post #181
jacobr1 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how does it work now with bank fraud or technical issues? Ignore the fintech layer for a moment, just consider a bank like Chase or Wells Fargo. If their mobile app causes an erroneous transfer, or the backend removes money from your account or maybe doesn't give you the expected interest amount your saving account due to a bug ... what is the recourse? For a reputable company, even if their support is a hassle, t…

The consumer finance protection bureau is your best bet. Banking regulators will also get involved for patterns of conduct, but this can take years.

Isn't that getting deleted after January?

Re: Launch HN: Double (YC W24) – Index Investing with 0% Expense Ratios

#205

Post by [deleted] »

jjmaxwell4 wrote: post #109
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, FWIW I think their disclosures look good, but I want some explicit reassurance. I want to ensure "in your name" is not the same thing as "for benefit of". The thing that actually gives me the most reassurance is that they say definitively that they are a Registered Investment Advisor. In the Synapse situation, all the regulatory agencies were essentially saying "not my problem" because Synapse itself wasn't cov…

The account is opened in your name and your securities are held in your name at Apex Clearing. Apex has more than 19M brokerage accounts opened. We are Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) regulated by the SEC.

[deleted]

Re: Launch HN: Double (YC W24) – Index Investing with 0% Expense Ratios

#206

Post by toast0 »

taway789aaa6 wrote: post #53
shred45 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Order flow in dark pools does impact the price of a security. The market maker will eventually need to trade out of that position. If there is aggregate buying pressure in the dark pool, they will adjust their quotes in both dark and lit markets.

> The market maker will eventually need to trade out of that position This is why Citadel has $60+ billion dollars of "securities sold not yet purchased" on their financial statements. They have sold $60+ BILLION of shares to investors and not yet bought the underlying securities. So when exactly will that $60 billion of buy pressure hit the market?

> They have sold $60+ BILLION of shares to investors and not yet bought the underlying securities.

> So when exactly will that $60 billion of buy pressure hit the market?

Citadel needs to deliver the stock they sold on T+1 as of May 28, 2024. There's some allowance for failure to deliver, but the data is out there, if Citadel is routinely failing to deliver, you should be complaining about that, not about their financial statements.

Meanwhile, if Citadel wants to pay me fractional pennies more per share than a public exchange, and also my brokerage fractional pennies for the privilege, who am I to say no? Especially when the public exchange may charge me a fee to trade.

Re: Launch HN: Double (YC W24) – Index Investing with 0% Expense Ratios

#207

Post by throwacomment »

wrsh07 wrote: post #25
dayone1 wrote: post #11

1) are you going to sell your trade flow to Citadel / market makers like Robinhood and your competitors do? That's the dirty secret way of making money that you seem to have completely excluded. The reality is that adds up to substantial "invisible" fees that the investor has no transparency over because you sell your trade flows to them and they make a higher than normal spread. And the whole "doesn't matter if we s…

Pfof is woefully misunderstood In general, citadel wants to pay to trade with retail investors because it knows it isn't going to face adverse selection. So it will give them tighter bid/ask ratios (this is better for the customer) than they would get if they were trading in the open market, citadel isn't going to get hosed by one of them (because there's no adverse selection) It's win win win

Yes, PFOF is woefully misunderstood but its very much not win win win.

The reason its bad is because its anti-competive and gives them information that no-one else has access to.

By trading against you, Citadel prevents any other potential market maker from trading with you. With less competition, the spread widens and even after price improvement, you're paying more.

PFOF also tells them who they are trading against but anyone else who just sees a quote doesn't know that.

Generally, things are very zero sum so wins all around are very unlikely. But some thinking is needed to track where the value loss and gains are.

Re: Launch HN: Double (YC W24) – Index Investing with 0% Expense Ratios

#209

Post by throwacomment »

dayone1 wrote: post #11

1) are you going to sell your trade flow to Citadel / market makers like Robinhood and your competitors do? That's the dirty secret way of making money that you seem to have completely excluded. The reality is that adds up to substantial "invisible" fees that the investor has no transparency over because you sell your trade flows to them and they make a higher than normal spread. And the whole "doesn't matter if we s…

Does anyone rebates 100% of the borrow fee or did that initially?

Re: Launch HN: Double (YC W24) – Index Investing with 0% Expense Ratios

#210

Post by dang »

paxys wrote: post #158
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #137

>> Over a 30-year period on a $500k portfolio, the money lost to those fees would be $1.30M for the financial advisor and $244k for the average ETF and even $42,951 for the low fee VOO. How do you calculate $42,951 for VOO? Seems too high on 500k, or at very best you are conflating FV and PV and comparing apples to oranges. First year is going to be $150. Last year is going to be maybe 2^3 * 500k * 0.03 = $1200? I'm…

The calculation is at https://double.finance/pricing They are assuming an additional $2000 contributed per month and a 7% return.

I've added that to the text above. Thanks!
Post reply on HN