351–360 of 434 posts
So a “typical” ETF costs me about 0.15% year, or around $150 for every $100k I have invested. While $12 per year would certainly save some money, it’s coffee money vs. life savings money. I think you’re going to have a hard time convincing me to move from offerings from companies like Barclays, Schwab, or Vanguard. Plus, zero fees doesn’t save me any money unless you can stay within 0.15% of the big index funds you’r…
Hi, and congrats on the launch! I'm curious about how this service compares to, say, the offerings of zero expense mutual funds from Fidelity of Schwab? I guess there's a lot more variety since I don't think those brokers have 50+ indexes. Have you found or might expect to find liquidity issues or spread costs with fractional shares? I imagine that if you have an account with, say, $3000 that is trying to implement S…
> If you could convince me that I could implement, say, S&P 500 and be cheaper, more tax effective than holding those ETFs, that would be something interesting! The lowest-cost S&P 500 index fund currently has an expense ratio of 0.015%. Assuming similar performance (minimal tracking error) Double's fee of $12 per year would cost less for any portfolio over $80,000.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Please see my other comment that provides links to a study that shows: yes you get the best price from a broker using pfof Your argument seems reasonable but isn't borne out empirically https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42378516
Suppose in some other industry, some monopolist consistently sells goods at a loss to drive out all the competition. In the last moments when they are doing this, yes its cheaper for you to buy from the monopolist at that moment. But after everyone is driven out of the market, you'll be paying more. Even though the monopolist is still the cheapest amongst all options.
I'm saying you're already in the "after" scenario here. You're saying that you can save a few cents with PFOF when you cross that 50 cents spread and yes that's true. But I'm saying that spread should be 25 cents and no-one is offering that because they've been driven out.
Now that I think about it, the more immediate consequence to you is that some of your order will not fill because PFOF exists, rather than you getting a worst price. Say you put a bid to buy at 100. And then I come along and want to sell at 100. Normally, you'd get to buy from me. But because my order is PFOF'd, Citadel decides that buying from me at 101 is a good deal so they do. This happens a few time with different sellers then you get fed up and/or the market moves. So you raise your bid to 150. Citadel sells to you at 149. You saved 1 off that 150 but lost out 49 from the trade you'd have gotten from me without PFOF.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to hold people's serious money and not play money, understand that priority #1 is not growth or expense ratios - it's risk mitigation. Swiss banks are notoriously expensive and have terrible investment products that hold trillions because of their obsession with protecting capital. As a startup, you must figure out how to convince ordinary people to change their family safety net. Full transparency, audit…
> Swiss banks are notoriously expensive and have terrible investment products that hold trillions because of their obsession with protecting capital. What? Their second largest bank, Credit Suisse, imploded only last year. They hold trillions because of their nominal neutrality (though their cooperation with western sanctions against Russians appears to be hurting this significantly) and banking secrecy laws that ser…
Nomenculture aside, depositors did not lose a single cent in that implosion, and it went smoother than the SVB one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is always the answer that gets posted. AIUI, though, the decent-interest-rate accounts are only available from online-only banks, and as recently as last year, I was required to visit a branch (…3, as it was…) in order to conduct some transactions, largely due to credit cards having a daily limit. (I also sort of loathe the idea of needing to continually update a bunch of ACH information every year while I chase…
Open a brokerage account and buy SGOV with your cash savings. Done.
Ummm, have y'all thought about spread costs? If you look at the spread of any of these ETF's mentioned (spread = ask px - bid px), you will notice that the spread is much smaller than if you were to sum up the spreads of each component stock. That's possible because of a mature ecosystem of ETF market makers and arbitrageurs (like Jane Street). If you buy all of the stocks individually, as it sounds like y'all's solu…
Looking through the surface level details of Double, I quite like what I'm seeing. That said, I use Schwab, Wealthfront, and M1 and am not entirely happy with any of them so I am probably a targeted type of customer. I haven't lookeded too deeply (no idea if implementing things like HFEA style leveraged portfolios in an efficient way is possible, for example, or if there are non-index means of handling hold-till-matu…
What is it you don't like about M1?
I also think "index except" is a very nice feature they don't have.
I'd consider this if you had some kind of "green" fund that excludes oil companies and other polluters. I don't want to invest in the oil industry, but funds like that tend to have pretty high fees and expense ratios.
You can do this quite easily with Double. If you pick the US 500, you and completely remove the Energy Sector. We are working on getting some more ESG focused portfolios directly live but it's very very do-able right now.
Thank you for mentioning this. ESG funds are the first thing that came to mind when I saw your post.
> We handle all the management, including rebalancing and tax-loss harvesting—proactively selling losing stocks to potentially save on taxes - For a non-retirement portfolio, isn't rebalancing is a taxable event? Rebalancing by selling stocks and buying others is not the best approach. Isn't it better to rebalance by shifting the focus of new investments based on a strategy? - I think it is misleading to present tax-…
TLH is sort of a synthetic loss. You just sell and buy essentially equivalent funds to realize an unrealized but existing loss, lowering your cost basis. The amount of stock you own doesn't change at the TLH event. You get a (small) deduction against your taxable income at the cost of more capital gains in the (maybe distant, lower tax bracket) future.
I’ve been doing this cycle for a bit now and while it doesn’t produce life changing savings, it does motivate me to donate more.
Donor advised funds make donating shares pretty easy to do.