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

Post by danielmarkbruce » Tue, Dec 10, 2024, 6:43 PM UTC

chis wrote: post #211

paxys wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Handy calculator. Comparing to VTSAX (.04% expense ratio), they show a 1% difference. Not nothing, but hard to justify switching when you consider the downside risk of this company going out of business or selling in the next 30 years. I think this is going to be a hard product to sell when your target market is exactly the sort of people who are well-informed enough to just buy vanguard mutual funds for a nearly ide…

Post by bboygravity » Tue, Dec 10, 2024, 6:46 PM UTC

jjmaxwell4 wrote: post #216

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #16

I saw the "Your Money is Secure" section, but after things like the Synapse fiasco, I would like to get confirmation from you. It says my money would be SIPC insured, which means if anything goes missing (obviously not through loss of equity value, but through missing funds or a ledger bug), I get my money back, up to the SIPC limit, right? I just want to ensure this isn't the same situation with fintechs that say yo…

If Double goes out of business, your assets are safe and held in your name at Apex Clearing. They have processes in place for these scenarios to help you access and transfer those assets. SIPC protection covers against a brokerage firm failing, which in our case is Apex Clearing. We are not currently a brokerage so SIPC would not apply if Double goes bankrupt.

Post by lldb » Tue, Dec 10, 2024, 6:49 PM UTC

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

Post by dmoy » Tue, Dec 10, 2024, 6:55 PM UTC

toast0 wrote: post #222

dmoy wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vanguard doesn't make money off of short term lending. They do it, but the proceeds go back to the individual funds (helps boost index tracking performance). Fidelity and Schwab both take a cut. I forget beyond that, I guess IBKR does stuff.

Vanguard keeps sending me emails lately about enabling lending on my brokerage account[1]; although I only have classic mutual funds in there, which I don't think can be lent. I imagine their brokerage lending will include a cut for the brokerage, although maybe it will be closer to cost than at other brokerages. I don't really know where the Vanguard brokerage net revenue ends up. [1] And frankly a lot of other 'opp…

Post by brokensegue » Tue, Dec 10, 2024, 7:03 PM UTC

ram_rar wrote: post #192

As much as I love to use your product, the challenge from my perspective is why switch for 0.03% in fees? Especially when you compare it to likes of fidelity, vanguard , schwab. Those 3 are too big to fail. The point I am accentuating is, that just lowering the fees to 0 is not a compelling reason anymore, especially when the fees are soo low already, its race to the bottom.