Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyGuy
I'll just say it's somewhere between a million and enough to buy the Calgary Flames. 
As for this debate on ETFs being a better choice than funds or stocks, I know someone will say I have a vested interest, but I think you guys are looking at this the wrong way. It's not whether I can save 50 basis points, but what will make me better off.
I don't have the time for a full reply right now, but first off you can't buy the performance of the index anyway. If 20% of actively managed funds under perform the index and it costs 50 bps to buy the index, that 20% then likely becomes something like 35%. Take out the dogs from the fund universe and look just at the really good managers and it's way different. I'd argue that if you choose from the elite managers that you'll out perform the index minus the cost of buying the index. I know it, but some people use a very one-sided case for index investing.
Then, if you buy the ETFs without advice, are you going to do the right things when you own the ETFs? Most people screw up and let emotions rule their decisions, harming themselves. I can't tell you the number of times I've persuaded someone to stay the course near a market bottom, when they wanted to sell everything and head for the hills. Market's down 30% and your heart wants to sell, but a year later you held on and are up 20%. How much is that worth?
What is the tax and estate planning we do worth? What about everything else that we do to keep folks on track?
Sorry, but if you want to cut your fees by 50 bps, go ahead. Will you be better off than by dealing with a client-centred advisor like Slava? I highly doubt it. |
I can appreciate where this is coming from. However I counter that in defence of ETFs you have to offer up something that proves that the 'star managers' tend to beat the index enough to justify their fees over the long term. Not only that you will have to also prove that the star managers of tomorrow are easily identified today in a way that makes it actionable.
Also your criticism of ETFs seems to be parcelled in with the belief that the person using them would do so inefficiently (Not really an apples vs apples comparison, because mismanagement would crater returns in any case). Should someone understand proper asset allocation and use ETFs in conjuntion with stocks, bonds, et al to build and rebalance their portfolio according to their needs and risk tolerance over time, then it should just come down to an analysis of returns between fund products and ETFs.