The Case Against ETFs

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Topic Author
schooner
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:27 am

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by schooner » Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:12 pm

vineviz wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:08 pm
schooner wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:57 am
Hard to believe the move to ETFs isn't causing people to trade more often, hurting returns.
I'm now sure why it's hard for you to believe: I generally find it easier to believe things for which I have evidence than things for which I have none.
"ETFs’ impact on stock trading has reached mammoth proportions. They account for nearly one-half of all trading in US stocks. So far in 2016, the dollar volume of trading in the 100 largest ETFs has totalled $13.0tn. Trading in the stocks of the 100 largest US corporations totalled $13.9tn, only slightly larger. But the $1.6tn market capitalisation of those ETFs is but a small fraction of the $12.8tn for those corporate stocks. As a result, the annualised turnover rates are different in magnitude: stock turnover, 120 per cent; ETF turnover, 880 per cent. The implications of this rapid trading — call it speculation — have yet to be fully examined."

Source: https://www.ft.com/content/f406d50c-bbc ... b81dd5d080

moneyman11
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:09 am

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by moneyman11 » Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:12 pm

unclescrooge wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:29 am
moneyman11 wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:00 am
unclescrooge wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:48 am
moneyman11 wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:06 pm
schooner wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:14 pm
3) Liquidity: Many ETFs now track relatively illiquid assets. The backbone of the ETF is the Authorized Participant (AP). The APs are key to the creation and redemption process. But they are not contractually obligated to play that role. This is a moot point for highly liquid, publicly traded securities. There will always be someone to step in to arbitrage any mismatch in price. But what happens when the ETF has illiquid assets such as junk bonds or "alternative" assets. According to one academic study, "this liquidity mismatch can reduce market eciency and increase the fragility of these ETFs."

This one is the biggest reason I will never again invest in Bond ETFs after the experience in them during the 2008 financial crisis.

During this time (specifically Oct 2008), Bond ETFs containing corporate bonds completely lost connection to their underlying NAVs - or at least the NAVs that the corresponding mutual funds were being priced at - and proved to be completely broken. Even the venerable BND.

This proved to be a great opportunity for those with cash to buy these underpriced ETFs. But for those looking to sell bond ETFs to rebalance into the plummeting stocks of the time, you would have had to sell your bond ETFs at a serious discount to NAV.

At the time, on these boards, many people tried to explain it with some rational sounding explanations but after the smoke had cleared it because clear that in a liquidity crisis, ETFs containing corporate bonds can be seriously problematic. I recall that some time afterward, even Rick Ferri stating that he didn't want to deal with bond ETFs that weren't all nominal treasury because of this.


If you feel like going in a time machine back to this fun time: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=25211&p=298211#p298211
If you panic and sold, you hurt yourself.
I'm well aware of that, thanks. I didn't sell my bond ETF at that time.

The issue with the specific period in question (October 9-10 2008), wasn't that I wanted to "panic" out of my bond ETF ... it was that I wanted to sell BND to buy stocks, which at the time were plunging.

The point is if I had been invested in VBTLX instead of BND, I could have rebalanced out of my bond fund at 6% more value - even though they ostensibly represent the same investment. I didn't rebalance out of BND until the price of BND moved back up to parity with the NAV, and the massive discount mostly disappeared.

I was told by vineviz in this thread that what I experienced back then was "not true" and an "illusion". If you read on in this thread, I proved that it indeed did happen.

That vineviz quietly changed from arguing that it didn't happen, to arguing that the 6% lower ETF price was actually "more accurate", I'll take as his admission that the huge difference in what you could have sold VBTLX for vs BND during that time actually did exist, and that he was wrong to doubt it.
Maybe the truth was somewhere between the your two viewpoints.

Even if you are completely correct, I'm not going to change my mind based on an event that is likely to occur once a decade or two.

What I described - and what was questioned - wasn't a "viewpoint", it was an actual event that occurred.

If you don't think the event itself is a reason to avoid bond ETFs, that's fine. I never argued for that beyond stating it was my preference after experiencing the event I referred to.

What I stated, and proved, was that the event occurred - there's no "somewhere between" in that.

quantAndHold
Posts: 3438
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by quantAndHold » Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:17 pm

Like many other issues where half of us are trying to control the behavior of the other half...

If you don’t like ETFs, don’t buy ETFs.

A lot of the anti-ETF arguments in this thread seem to be willfully ignorant of how ETFs actually work.

Chip
Posts: 2557
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:57 am

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by Chip » Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:22 pm

schooner wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:22 am
I agree that it works for some people. But there is a casino like atmosphere in ETFs. Just look at at the wacky ticker symbols and plethora of funds. And a lot of people are not behaving like you.

Re tax efficiency, Vanguard SP500 fund had minimal cap gains before 2000’s patent. Less than 50 basis points, sometimes much less. It is really the low turnover
A lot of people cut themselves using kitchen knives. Some even hurt other people with them. That doesn't make kitchen knives "bad". Nor does the fact that some people do stupid things with ETFs make them "bad".

I would posit that people that are inclined to make stupid investing decisions have always found, and will always find, a way to scratch that itch. Whether it's with an ETF or something else.

ETFs exist, period. Why continue to beat this dead horse?

Topic Author
schooner
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:27 am

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by schooner » Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:23 pm

quantAndHold wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:17 pm
Like many other issues where half of us are trying to control the behavior of the other half...

If you don’t like ETFs, don’t buy ETFs.

A lot of the anti-ETF arguments in this thread seem to be willfully ignorant of how ETFs actually work.
I'm just making a case against the ETF using the available data and academic literature. There are some good counterpoints. But it's fascinating that no one has produced data or a study that demonstrates the benefit of ETF adoption to investor returns. There's a lot of theory regarding tax efficiency and investor choice. But where is the performance data to back that up? It's more of an intellectual exercise ;-)

User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 4753
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by vineviz » Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:24 pm

schooner wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:12 pm
vineviz wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:08 pm
schooner wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:57 am
Hard to believe the move to ETFs isn't causing people to trade more often, hurting returns.
I'm now sure why it's hard for you to believe: I generally find it easier to believe things for which I have evidence than things for which I have none.
"ETFs’ impact on stock trading has reached mammoth proportions. They account for nearly one-half of all trading in US stocks. So far in 2016, the dollar volume of trading in the 100 largest ETFs has totalled $13.0tn. Trading in the stocks of the 100 largest US corporations totalled $13.9tn, only slightly larger. But the $1.6tn market capitalisation of those ETFs is but a small fraction of the $12.8tn for those corporate stocks. As a result, the annualised turnover rates are different in magnitude: stock turnover, 120 per cent; ETF turnover, 880 per cent. The implications of this rapid trading — call it speculation — have yet to be fully examined."

Source: https://www.ft.com/content/f406d50c-bbc ... b81dd5d080
What percentage of that trading is attributable to individual investors?

Or to investors who would own mutual funds if they didn’t own ETFs?

You probably won’t like the answer to either question.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

Topic Author
schooner
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:27 am

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by schooner » Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:30 pm

vineviz wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:24 pm
schooner wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:12 pm
vineviz wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:08 pm
schooner wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:57 am
Hard to believe the move to ETFs isn't causing people to trade more often, hurting returns.
I'm now sure why it's hard for you to believe: I generally find it easier to believe things for which I have evidence than things for which I have none.
"ETFs’ impact on stock trading has reached mammoth proportions. They account for nearly one-half of all trading in US stocks. So far in 2016, the dollar volume of trading in the 100 largest ETFs has totalled $13.0tn. Trading in the stocks of the 100 largest US corporations totalled $13.9tn, only slightly larger. But the $1.6tn market capitalisation of those ETFs is but a small fraction of the $12.8tn for those corporate stocks. As a result, the annualised turnover rates are different in magnitude: stock turnover, 120 per cent; ETF turnover, 880 per cent. The implications of this rapid trading — call it speculation — have yet to be fully examined."

Source: https://www.ft.com/content/f406d50c-bbc ... b81dd5d080
What percentage of that trading is attributable to individual investors?

Or to investors who would own mutual funds if they didn’t own ETFs?

You probably won’t like the answer to either question.
About 40% and and growing:

"Institutional investors increased their ownership of US exchange traded funds by $213bn in 2016 to $1.4tn, accounting for 59 per cent of all ETF assets, according to analysis from Deutsche Bank. Despite growing by the amount of assets, institutional investors now make up a smaller proportion of the ETF landscape than they did in 2015, as retail ownership grew at a faster pace."

https://www.ft.com/content/c70113ac-ab8 ... d874533fb0

chisey
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:47 am

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by chisey » Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:34 pm

schooner wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:30 pm
About 40% and and growing:

"Institutional investors increased their ownership of US exchange traded funds by $213bn in 2016 to $1.4tn, accounting for 59 per cent of all ETF assets, according to analysis from Deutsche Bank. Despite growing by the amount of assets, institutional investors now make up a smaller proportion of the ETF landscape than they did in 2015, as retail ownership grew at a faster pace."

https://www.ft.com/content/c70113ac-ab8 ... d874533fb0
That's ownership, not trading activity.

User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 4753
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by vineviz » Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:34 pm

schooner wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:30 pm
vineviz wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:24 pm

What percentage of that trading is attributable to individual investors?

Or to investors who would own mutual funds if they didn’t own ETFs?

You probably won’t like the answer to either question.
About 40% and and growing:
Nope. Not what I asked.

I didn't ask about the percentage of ETF assets held by individuals, I asked about the percentage of ETF trading volume of individual investors.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

Topic Author
schooner
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:27 am

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by schooner » Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:43 pm

vineviz wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:34 pm
schooner wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:30 pm
vineviz wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:24 pm

What percentage of that trading is attributable to individual investors?

Or to investors who would own mutual funds if they didn’t own ETFs?

You probably won’t like the answer to either question.
About 40% and and growing:
Nope. Not what I asked.

I didn't ask about the percentage of ETF assets held by individuals, I asked about the percentage of ETF trading volume of individual investors.
I'd point to research by Michael Pham at Columbia University. Here is an article summarizing some of his findings as it fits in with the transition to ETFs:

"His research found that people tend to operate under two different mindsets when making financial and investments decisions: a “promotion focus” and a “prevention focus.” The mere labeling of the type of instruments and accounts — for example, trading account vs. IRA; or stock vs. mutual fund — is sufficient to trigger either one of these mindsets. Once these mindsets are triggered, people tend to behave exuberantly, Pham said. It is either all about upside and gains, or only potential risks and downside."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/01/vanguar ... sting.html

User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 4753
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by vineviz » Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:54 pm

schooner wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:43 pm
I'd point to research by Michael Pham at Columbia University.
Okay, so point to it: what research has Michael Pham done on ETF usage? A link to any papers he's published on the topic would be nice.
schooner wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:43 pm
Vanguard Group founder Bogle told CNBC earlier this year, “We have had more and more speculators using ETFs to participate in the market. ... They turn over with fury.”
I think Bogle was a great man, but it's not clear on what basis he is making this claim. The average holding period for ETFs is somewhere between 3 and 6 years, which I wouldn't characterize as "turn over with fury.”

And not to revel in the irony, but literally the paragraph before that quote in the story says this:
Research conducted on index funds by Morningstar director of global ETF research, Ben Johnson, supports this view. Johnson studied the gap between the returns a group of index funds generated (time-weighted returns) and the returns that investors, on average, experienced in those same funds once you account for their buying and selling (cash-flow weighted returns). The gap between the two (which is referred to as the behavior gap) is effectively a self-imposed penalty that investors suffer in their attempts to time the market. While Johnson studied traditional index funds, not ETFs, he expects that the ETF gap would be even wider.
So what we've got is evidence that investors will shoot themselves in the foot with whatever weapon they happen to have handy, and no evidence that ETFs make that behavior either more common or more dangerous.

That's the "case against ETFs"?
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

Topic Author
schooner
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:27 am

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by schooner » Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:59 pm

stan1 wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:56 pm
Definitely need to go after free soda refills next. Free soda refills are leading to obesity and very high costs to taxpayer funded medical programs. Something surely needs to be done about that.
Definitely my last post on Bogleheads, have a great weekend y'all :-)

chisey
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:47 am

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by chisey » Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:03 pm

schooner wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:59 pm
Definitely my last post on Bogleheads, have a great weekend y'all :-)
:beer

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 38772
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: A "case" against mutual funds

Post by nisiprius » Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:07 pm

jeffyscott wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:39 am
nisiprius wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 5:37 am
But testy exchange in another thread did get me thinking of a potential "case" against mutual funds. The "case" involves the complex and secretive business arrangements that govern mutual funds when bought through brokerages and advisors.
There's that, but there is also the mysterious (to me anyway) arrangements that somehow allow unlimited free trading of ETFs at brokerages. Vanguard's brokerage is the most extreme example, allowing nearly every ETF in existence to be traded with no commission.
Yes, I agree, I was going to say something about it. But the size of the difference between no-fee ETF and normal-fee ETF is in single-digit collars, while the difference between no-transaction-fee ETF and transaction-fee ETF is an order of magnitude higher. A $6.95 ETF fee isn't much, and if you aren't a frequent trader you might have a "hundred free trades" deal you can use for it. A $35 to $75 fee for a mutual purchase is pretty bad. That's like an extra 0.35% to 0.75% on the expense ratio for a $10,000 purchase.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

cheezit
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2018 7:28 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by cheezit » Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:15 pm

With regards to the cash drag issue, the way I get around this is by having one fund that I hold in TIF form rather than ETF form and rebalancing in bands with new purchases, with the leftover cash after buying the ETFs to bring them all into their bands going into the TIF.

KyleAAA
Posts: 7324
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by KyleAAA » Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:24 pm

schooner wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:57 am
KyleAAA wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:47 am
I am not aware of any academic literature that concludes ETFs, as a form, are bad for investors. Even the ones you linked simply conclude they don't make investors better off. Bad behavior is equally easy with traditional mutual funds.
Where are the studies to support ETFs? Vanguard has migrated a lot of investors from MFs to ETFs. Where is the performance data on that transition?

Vanguard has 129 mutual funds but offers 1,800 commission free ETFs. Those are a lot of funds. Hard to believe the move to ETFs isn't causing people to trade more often, hurting returns.

You can't trade a mutual fund during the day. You can trade ETFs, a lot. Vanguard also has additional trading limitations for its mutual funds.
What do you mean? I am not claiming ETFs are objectively better or worse, you are. I would expect you to have your own evidence, and "hard to believe" doesn't count.

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 38772
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by nisiprius » Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:25 pm

I'd like to see an actual analysis of the "cash drag due to inability to buy fractional shares" issue. I doubt it amounts to much. Let's you get paid $60,000 a year = $5,000 a month, and you wish to invest $1,000 every month into VTI, currently $147.54 per share. Let's suppose it stayed at that price for a while... well, ideally, every time you paid you'd want to buy 6.7778 shares, but you can't. What would happen is you'd buy 6 shares one month, you'd have $114.76 to carry over to next month, so you'd have $1114.76 for the purchase next month, you'd buy 7 shares and have $32 left over, and so on... you'd buy some pattern of 6, 7, 7, 6, 7, or whatever, averaging out to 6.7778 shares or whatever it should be. You don't have a permanent cash drag that amounts to much, most of whatever cash can't be invested one month gets used a month later. I'd seriously like to see the numbers run, using real price fluctuations.

And it doesn't represent a loss, exactly. It's not like sales load or an expense ratio, because the unwanted cash is not being exposed to stock risk. If you're being clever about it should be earning whatever cash earns. It's not a dollar loss, it's a slight tracking error in your intended stock allocation. You meant to be 60% stocks but you are really only averaging (who know) 59.8% stocks, so you are experiencing microscopically less return and less risk, and probably in the roundoff error for risk-adjusted return numbers.
Last edited by nisiprius on Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

jbranx
Posts: 1544
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:57 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by jbranx » Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:27 pm

{I deleted two off-topic comments} Moderator Jbranx

User avatar
samsoes
Posts: 1279
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:12 am
Location: Northeast Rat Race

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by samsoes » Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:28 pm

longinvest wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:50 pm
schooner wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:47 pm
longinvest wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:40 pm
bgf wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:26 pm
Can vanguard redeem shares of VBTLX at anything other than the NAV? what does that have to do with the difference between NAV and BND in times of liquidity crisis?
No, it can't. But, how can NAV be known? Even in normal time, every marketable security has two prices: bid and ask. NAV has a single price for both sellers and buyers. Do you see that NAV has to be an approximate price? It can't be both the sum of all bid prices AND the sum of all ask prices. It has to be either one, or a price in-between.

When there's a lot of volatility or when some securities have become illiquid, determining a NAV price is tricky business. The consequences of any error (NAV too high or too low) will be assumed by long-term holders. It might be a positive consequence, or a negative one, depending on the situation.
NAV = (Assets-Liabilities)/outstanding shares. Pretty simple stuff unless you’re trading exotic stuff. Just look at the closing prices of your underlying securities
It's not that simple. The mutual fund has to buy and sell securities. When it redeems units at its calculated NAV price, it isn't guaranteed to be able to sell the related securities, on the market, for that price.

The ETF, on the other hand, doesn't redeem parts for money. Instead, it gives back a basket of securities to the authorized participant. Doing so, it protects its long-term holders from pricing uncertainty.

Mutual funds holding international securities have even bigger problems. You can search for "fair value pricing".
Having been in the business for the better part of the last 31 years, I can tell you that NAVs are calculated by neither the bid nor the ask. Rather, they are calculated by the adjusted* last sale price of the component instruments. This official calculation is done by the listing exchange, which receives all trade data through a mechanism called the SIP which all exchanges report their trade data into on a real-time (sub-millisecond) basis.

*About 20 years ago, Exchanges began calculating their "official" last sale price, which doesn't count very low-volume, outrageously priced, late in the session trades designed to skew the mutual fund calculations one way or another. Many non-US exchanges also calculate an official close. Their methods are sometimes proprietary, or sometimes they are as simple as using the VWAP (volume-weighted average price) calculated over the last hour of trading.

Only in the event of illiquid instruments or other situations where there isn't a qualifying official last sale price is the BBO (Best Bid and Offer) used for the calculation, and it is oftentimes the midpoint of the spread. But this is the rare exception.
"Happiness Is Not My Companion" - Gen. Gouverneur K. Warren. | (Avatar is the statue of Gen. Warren atop Little Round Top @ Gettysburg National Military Park.)

User avatar
unclescrooge
Posts: 3608
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by unclescrooge » Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:04 pm

schooner wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:18 pm
Silence Dogood wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:27 pm
Broken Man 1999 wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:50 pm
OP, why do you care what others do?

Obviously if one cannot resist temptations, there are many things they should probably avoid.

Broken Man 1999
To be fair, there are ETF advocates who seem to be devoted to get everyone to switch over from mutual funds.

People should invest in whichever they feel most comfortable with. I don't understand why there has been so much lobbying recently advocating for one over the other.

Supposedly the Vanguard Target Retirement and LifeStrategy (mutual) funds will be switching over to ETFs for their underlying funds. This will be interesting because it will have the benefits of both mutual funds (ease of purchase - (after hours and fractional shares)) and ETFs (lower cost).
I’m a Vanguard investor and very unhappy about their move to ETFs. While it helps Vanguard lower record keeping costs, it hurts a lot of people who are going to start trading more frequently. It’s really sad to watch. Just look at Bogleheads and some of the most popular threads - factor investing, leverage strategies, market timing. It’s the antithesis of what Bogle believed in.
People are attracted to day trading.
I recall seeing a book in early 2000s about day trading inside your 401k, which was all mutual funds back then.
Don't blame vanguard for investor misbehavior.

User avatar
jeffyscott
Posts: 8072
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:12 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: A "case" against mutual funds

Post by jeffyscott » Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:43 pm

nisiprius wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:07 pm
jeffyscott wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:39 am
nisiprius wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 5:37 am
But testy exchange in another thread did get me thinking of a potential "case" against mutual funds. The "case" involves the complex and secretive business arrangements that govern mutual funds when bought through brokerages and advisors.
There's that, but there is also the mysterious (to me anyway) arrangements that somehow allow unlimited free trading of ETFs at brokerages. Vanguard's brokerage is the most extreme example, allowing nearly every ETF in existence to be traded with no commission.
Yes, I agree, I was going to say something about it. But the size of the difference between no-fee ETF and normal-fee ETF is in single-digit collars, while the difference between no-transaction-fee ETF and transaction-fee ETF is an order of magnitude higher. A $6.95 ETF fee isn't much, and if you aren't a frequent trader you might have a "hundred free trades" deal you can use for it. A $35 to $75 fee for a mutual purchase is pretty bad. That's like an extra 0.35% to 0.75% on the expense ratio for a $10,000 purchase.
But with or without a transaction fee, I don't think mutual funds have the volume of trading that ETFs do. I looked at VTI, and the volume is enough to trade every single share in about 300 days. I'd guess that is one of the less frequently traded ones.

So maybe the trading frequency of ETFs is an order of magnitude higher, offsetting the order of magnitude difference in what the trading fees would be?
Time is your friend; impulse is your enemy. - John C. Bogle

longinvest
Posts: 3774
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:44 am

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by longinvest » Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:51 pm

samsoes wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:28 pm
longinvest wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:50 pm
schooner wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:47 pm
longinvest wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:40 pm
bgf wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:26 pm
Can vanguard redeem shares of VBTLX at anything other than the NAV? what does that have to do with the difference between NAV and BND in times of liquidity crisis?
No, it can't. But, how can NAV be known? Even in normal time, every marketable security has two prices: bid and ask. NAV has a single price for both sellers and buyers. Do you see that NAV has to be an approximate price? It can't be both the sum of all bid prices AND the sum of all ask prices. It has to be either one, or a price in-between.

When there's a lot of volatility or when some securities have become illiquid, determining a NAV price is tricky business. The consequences of any error (NAV too high or too low) will be assumed by long-term holders. It might be a positive consequence, or a negative one, depending on the situation.
NAV = (Assets-Liabilities)/outstanding shares. Pretty simple stuff unless you’re trading exotic stuff. Just look at the closing prices of your underlying securities
It's not that simple. The mutual fund has to buy and sell securities. When it redeems units at its calculated NAV price, it isn't guaranteed to be able to sell the related securities, on the market, for that price.

The ETF, on the other hand, doesn't redeem parts for money. Instead, it gives back a basket of securities to the authorized participant. Doing so, it protects its long-term holders from pricing uncertainty.

Mutual funds holding international securities have even bigger problems. You can search for "fair value pricing".
Having been in the business for the better part of the last 31 years, I can tell you that NAVs are calculated by neither the bid nor the ask. Rather, they are calculated by the adjusted* last sale price of the component instruments. This official calculation is done by the listing exchange, which receives all trade data through a mechanism called the SIP which all exchanges report their trade data into on a real-time (sub-millisecond) basis.

*About 20 years ago, Exchanges began calculating their "official" last sale price, which doesn't count very low-volume, outrageously priced, late in the session trades designed to skew the mutual fund calculations one way or another. Many non-US exchanges also calculate an official close. Their methods are sometimes proprietary, or sometimes they are as simple as using the VWAP (volume-weighted average price) calculated over the last hour of trading.

Only in the event of illiquid instruments or other situations where there isn't a qualifying official last sale price is the BBO (Best Bid and Offer) used for the calculation, and it is oftentimes the midpoint of the spread. But this is the rare exception.
Thanks. This makes sense, even though I would have used a forward looking price instead of a historical price. But, I still don't like that the mutual fund makes redemptions at an adjusted closing price that might (exceptionally!!!) not be near what it will effectively get when it sells the underlying securities. As a long-term holder, I prefer the ETF creation and redemption process that relies on exchanging securities for ETF shares.
Last edited by longinvest on Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Bogleheads investment philosophy | single-ETF balanced portfolio | VBAL

JackoC
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:14 am

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by JackoC » Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:53 pm

schooner wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:13 am
chisey wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:09 am
schooner wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:27 am
True, but you would not be following your AA anymore. Plus, ordinary investors are putting away smaller amounts through DCA. If you’re investing $500 every paycheck, that’s real drag, with opportunity costs compounded over decades.
You are seriously overstating how much drag results from this issue.

Let's take a particularly bad hypothetical situation where you have $500 to invest into a 3-ETF portfolio each month (split 1/3-1/3-1/3), and each ETF costs you $126 to invest in. Suppose your portfolio returns 12% and cash only returns 1%.

In the first month, you can buy a share of each but it leaves you with $122 left in cash for a whole month. Each month, you add another $500 but only buy shares if you can buy them in proper proportion.

Do this for 30 years. How much does the cash drag hurt you?

The answer: 1.7 basis points in annual returns over 30 years. In dollars? $1,520,866 vs $1,526,007.

It's a tiny effect because over time, the average cash balance is only $190 vs. a portfolio that gets several orders of magnitude larger than that within a few years.
True, but why give up $6,000 for ETFs? Plus the costs from the bid ask spread. When you can use a traditional index mutual fund?
I think others have also pointed this out including Nispirus just earlier, but the $6k in that example is not a 'loss' except under very limited assumptions. In general the investor almost always has *some* money in cash anyway. Even if you call it an 'emergency fund' which 'doesn't count in my allocation', cash is cash in reality. And if the investor does have 100%, of everything, in stock they can just slightly adjust the stock % upward to correct for the inadvertent periodic cash accumulation due to the transaction mechanics of an ETF. And even if the investor does not do that, the difference what cash earns at a given time and what you *want* stocks to earn is not a 'loss'. You have to factor in risk. Likewise, comparing past ex-post historical returns of cash and stocks and calling the difference a loss for holding cash, not accounting for the difference in risk the investor faced ex-ante, is not correct analysis.

But besides all that, focusing on little amounts of money left in cash to buy integer number of ETF shares is looking at a particular tree and ignoring the forest. If you build up (at some, one hopes fairly early stage) to 5X living expenses in stock MF's and a 1X 'emergency fund' there's a much bigger drag there (albeit again you have to risk adjust it) than the little rounding amounts in buying integer number of ETF shares. Whereas, if you have 5X living expenses in ETF's at a broker with good margin rates (which means Interactive Brokers, basically, among at all retail oriented shops AFAIK), you could plan to borrow 0.5X living expenses in an emergency against the ETF's, with basically zero probability of margin call (ie. borrow 10% of value, IB allows typically ~70%, so stocks have to monumentally implode to generate a margin call), and no ongoing cost (you only borrow *in an emergency*). Then you could hold only 0.5X in 'emergency fund' cash. That reduction in drag would swamp the one you are focusing on. The ability to use ETF shares as collateral for emergency liquidity is a significant advantage over MF shares, and it's hard to reach an ambitious financial goal just using 401k/IRA so eventually the ability to borrow contingently rather than hold all reserves in cash often becomes relevant in a successful portfolio.

In short the cash drag argument has little validity in general IMO.

The argument about bid-offer has some potential merit. And separately, the liquidity argument can cut in either direction depending what circumstance (the harm you can suffer as *non-selling* shareholder when an MF cashes other people out at unrealistically high NAV in a fast moving crisis, which you're not subject to as ETF holder v. the discount to NAV in market price you might suffer as *selling* shareholder of ETF shares v getting out of MF at end-of-day NAV). Again, the behavioral stuff depends on POV. I believe Jack Bogle earned a right to the paternalistic POV he took toward the interests of small investors in general. But I don't trade unnecessarily, so the fact that ETF's might temp other people to do so is not directly relevant to me. Similarly 'studies' quantifying that, not my problem. And the focus on this forum AIUI is supposed to be individual, and not 'we have to do something about this' kind of topics or approaches to topics.

Broken Man 1999
Posts: 2951
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:31 am

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by Broken Man 1999 » Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:30 pm

If one sticks to broad based index ETFs the bid/ask spread is not going to cause issues. In fact you might get the ETF at a discount to where the equivalent mutual fund NAV ends up at end of day.

Vanguard has a nice chart showing the bid/ask spread for their various ETFs.

Another reason Mr Bogle had no problems using ETFs based on broad-based indexes.

Broken Man 1999
“If I cannot drink Bourbon and smoke cigars in Heaven than I shall not go. " -Mark Twain

Silence Dogood
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:22 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by Silence Dogood » Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:16 pm

Chip wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:22 pm
A lot of people cut themselves using kitchen knives. Some even hurt other people with them. That doesn't make kitchen knives "bad". Nor does the fact that some people do stupid things with ETFs make them "bad".

I would posit that people that are inclined to make stupid investing decisions have always found, and will always find, a way to scratch that itch. Whether it's with an ETF or something else.

ETFs exist, period. Why continue to beat this dead horse?
I think this is a bad analogy.

Casinos exist, and I know people will always gamble - but I still don't want one built in my town.

If there were one built in my town, I think more people would start to gamble and more people would start to gamble more frequently.

Chip
Posts: 2557
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:57 am

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by Chip » Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:47 am

Silence Dogood wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:16 pm
I think this is a bad analogy.

Casinos exist, and I know people will always gamble - but I still don't want one built in my town.

If there were one built in my town, I think more people would start to gamble and more people would start to gamble more frequently.
I think mine is a pretty good analogy, but here's another one. I believe that at one time (apologies if I'm mistaken), Nisiprius compared Vanguard's open end mutual funds and their ETF share classes to beer in a bottle vs. beer in a can. Same beer, different container. My take on this: Beer bottles can break and hurt you. Some people think beer in cans doesn't taste as good. Some people will drink too much beer whether it's in a can or a bottle. That doesn't make the bottle (or can) inherently bad.

Trying to prevent people from doing stupid things with their money is a noble cause, but ETFs are FAR down on the list of windmills to tilt at.

Silence Dogood
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:22 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by Silence Dogood » Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:13 am

Chip wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:47 am
Silence Dogood wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:16 pm
I think this is a bad analogy.

Casinos exist, and I know people will always gamble - but I still don't want one built in my town.

If there were one built in my town, I think more people would start to gamble and more people would start to gamble more frequently.
I think mine is a pretty good analogy, but here's another one. I believe that at one time (apologies if I'm mistaken), Nisiprius compared Vanguard's open end mutual funds and their ETF share classes to beer in a bottle vs. beer in a can. Same beer, different container. My take on this: Beer bottles can break and hurt you. Some people think beer in cans doesn't taste as good. Some people will drink too much beer whether it's in a can or a bottle. That doesn't make the bottle (or can) inherently bad.

Trying to prevent people from doing stupid things with their money is a noble cause, but ETFs are FAR down on the list of windmills to tilt at.
Chip,

I should have been more clear.

I thought the knife analogy was bad but I wasn't actually trying to make a statement regarding my own thoughts on mutual funds v ETFs. The post you responded to argued that ETFs create a "casino like atmosphere." That may or may not be an appropriate concern (I would have to see the data), but using a kitchen knife analogy to respond to it isn't really addressing that concern.

As I've mentioned before, I prefer mutual funds. I don't understand why some people who prefer ETFs care so much if others prefer mutual funds. I don't understand why some people who prefer mutual funds care so much if others prefer ETFs.

I like the simplicity of the process of purchasing mutual funds. Right now, my portfolio consists of a Vanguard Target Retirement fund. I like the simplicity of my portfolio. It's been rumored that Vanguard will replace the underlying funds within these fund-of-funds with the ETF share equivalents, if that happens, it won't bother me at all. It will save me a bit of money and I'll still be able to invest in an all-in-one mutual fund.

I think a large majority of investors would benefit from being able to keep things as simple as possible. ETFs seem to be slightly more complicated for slightly less cost.
Last edited by Silence Dogood on Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Chip
Posts: 2557
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:57 am

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by Chip » Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:23 am

Silence Dogood wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:13 am
As I've mentioned before, I prefer mutual funds. I don't understand why some people who prefer ETFs care so much if others prefer mutual funds. I don't understand why some people who prefer mutual funds care so much if others prefer ETFs.
I thought the OP was basically saying that ETFs are a "bad thing" because some people use them in ways that are more akin to gambling than investing. And, by extrapolation, ALL people would be better off if they didn't exist. I disagree and believe that ETFs are a tool, like kitchen knives, that are beneficial when used appropriately.

I don't care one bit if someone prefers open end mutual funds over ETFs. They each have their advantages and disadvantages. It's the OP who is attempting to make the case that ETFs are bad and shouldn't be used.

wootwoot
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:37 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by wootwoot » Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:29 am

OP you didn't make a very good case for or against ETFs.

User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 4753
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by vineviz » Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:52 am

Silence Dogood wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:13 am
I thought the knife analogy was bad but I wasn't actually trying to make a statement regarding my own thoughts on mutual funds v ETFs. The post you responded to argued that ETFs create a "casino like atmosphere." That may or may not be an appropriate concern (I would have to see the data), but using a kitchen knife analogy to respond to it isn't really addressing that concern.
I think the knife analogy and the casino analogy both have merit.

The world is full of tools and items that serve a useful/legitimate purpose when used properly yet can be dangerous when used carelessly, recklessly, and/or for something other than their intended purpose: knives, casinos, chainsaws, Tide PODS, space heaters, swimming pools, etc.

I suspect most people will never use a chainsaw and would, if they tried to use one without training, be likely to do significant damage to themselves. How much merit, though, would a "case against chainsaws" have if it was based on a presumption that having chainsaws for sale at Home Depot was tempting people to cut off their legs?

Reasonable people will probably agree that MOST individual investors have no legitimate need for a 3x leveraged ETF that tracks gold mining stocks and that SOME investors will misuse such an ETF. But such a reasonable position doesn't seem to be the one that the OP was advancing.

Rather, the OP seemed to be suggesting that the mere existence of such an ETF represents a danger to ALL investors without offering ANY offsetting benefits. Such a strident argument goes beyond the limits, IMHO, of both logic and evidence.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

TropikThunder
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:41 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by TropikThunder » Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:06 pm

vineviz wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:52 am
Rather, the OP seemed to be suggesting that the mere existence of such an ETF represents a danger to ALL investors without offering ANY offsetting benefits. Such a strident argument goes beyond the limits, IMHO, of both logic and evidence.
It also doesn’t help that OP’s debate style seems to be:

1. OP makes overly broad, sensationalized statement against ETF’s.

2. Poster replies with reasoned argument that anti-ETF statement is not accurate.

3. OP repeats original statement.

Example: OP repeatedly says “Jack Bogle says ETF’s are bad” even when posters reply with Bogle’s actual quote, which is much more nuanced and balanced.

Broken Man 1999
Posts: 2951
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:31 am

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by Broken Man 1999 » Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:21 pm

TropikThunder wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:06 pm
vineviz wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:52 am
Rather, the OP seemed to be suggesting that the mere existence of such an ETF represents a danger to ALL investors without offering ANY offsetting benefits. Such a strident argument goes beyond the limits, IMHO, of both logic and evidence.
It also doesn’t help that OP’s debate style seems to be:

1. OP makes overly broad, sensationalized statement against ETF’s.

2. Poster replies with reasoned argument that anti-ETF statement is not accurate.

3. OP repeats original statement.

Example: OP repeatedly says “Jack Bogle says ETF’s are bad” even when posters reply with Bogle’s actual quote, which is much more nuanced and balanced.
As I have stated many times, Mr Bogle was not as doctrinaire as he was sometimes credited being so.

Best way to see what Mr Bogle said is to simply read his exact words, especially since there are plenty of sources available to do so.

Broken Man 1999
“If I cannot drink Bourbon and smoke cigars in Heaven than I shall not go. " -Mark Twain

Silence Dogood
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:22 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by Silence Dogood » Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:27 pm

I think that the main concern the OP had is that there is now the perception (reality?) that Vanguard is promoting ETFs over mutual funds.

The OP wanted to know the rationality behind this decision.

I think that his/her concerns could have been addressed more appropriately.

JTColton
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by JTColton » Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:58 pm

Silence Dogood wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:27 pm
I think that the main concern the OP had is that there is now the perception (reality?) that Vanguard is promoting ETFs over mutual funds.

The OP wanted to know the rationality behind this decision.

I think that his/her concerns could have been addressed more appropriately.
Completely false, from the OP he is trying make a case against ETFs based solely on factors of human behavior.

He only mentions Vanguard at all in the OP tangentially in reference to a specific fund.

typical.investor
Posts: 979
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:17 am

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by typical.investor » Sun Jun 16, 2019 12:07 am

JTColton wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:58 pm
Silence Dogood wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:27 pm
I think that the main concern the OP had is that there is now the perception (reality?) that Vanguard is promoting ETFs over mutual funds.

The OP wanted to know the rationality behind this decision.

I think that his/her concerns could have been addressed more appropriately.
Completely false, from the OP he is trying make a case against ETFs based solely on factors of human behavior.

He only mentions Vanguard at all in the OP tangentially in reference to a specific fund.
Yeah, and the OP's case includes misinformation from studies that are selectively quoted to give the impression that ETFs underperform their benchmarks when, in fact, the authors themselves state they are not claiming this is due to ETF mechanisms, but rather the rather known phenomenon of poor investor returns when chasing past performance. Individual stock, CEF, mutual funds and ETFs are all vulnerable to such behavior.

But yeah, dang those ETFs which are often cheaper and often more tax efficient.

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 38772
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by nisiprius » Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:37 am

Mutual funds and ETFs are exactly the same. There is no difference between them. Zero. It does not matter at all. It is entirely personal preference. People familiar with bank accounts often prefer mutual funds. People familiar with stock transactions often prefer ETFs.

That may not be absolutely true, but it is close to true, and it is closer to true than any statement I've seen that ends up with the conclusion that "mutual funds are better" or "ETFs are better."

All discussions that try to come to some general, single conclusion about which is better is angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff. It isn't even "which is better, Toyota or Honda?" It is more like "Which is better, a silver Toyota Camry or a pearl Toyota Camry?" Well, the silver is 0.1% more visible. Yeah, but the pearl has 0.1% higher resale value. Yeah, but the pearl touch-up paint is $5.95 and the silver touch-up paint is $6.95.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

zeal
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:28 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by zeal » Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:38 am

Personally, I will stick with index funds over ETFs. Index funds can be explained in detail in a paragraph or two. I have read every page in the wiki that references or explains ETFs, and I've read them several times over. I've read tens or likely even 100 forum topics on ETFs as well. All this time spent, and the way they work and their benefits over our 3-fund portfolio of index funds are still unclear to me, so this is likely the final time I read/post about them. If they are too complex and confusing for me to understand, then there's no way my completely-uninterested-in-finance wife will spend the time, after I'm gone, understanding/managing them that I would. A possible meager difference in return doesn't outweigh the risk/time invested for us.

I understand that ETFs are very simple for many Bogleheads and I hope their time, money, and effort pays off for them, but it's too complex for me and my family. I'll stick with A) not buying things I don't understand, B) being content with "good enough," and C) simplicity.

livesoft
Posts: 67424
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:00 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by livesoft » Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:42 am

^That's a very nice statement. I think people ignore the intricacies of mutual funds for some reason and just assume everybody knows what they are. In OtherWorld where everybody grew up with ETFs they are now having a discussion of the evils of mutual funds and their wiki articles on mutual funds are very long because no one understands how they work. For instance, why would anybody pay for something without knowing or setting the price they have to pay before they pay? How would you explain mutual funds to them?
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.

HEDGEFUNDIE
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:06 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by HEDGEFUNDIE » Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:51 am

zeal wrote:
Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:38 am
Personally, I will stick with index funds over ETFs. Index funds can be explained in detail in a paragraph or two. I have read every page in the wiki that references or explains ETFs, and I've read them several times over. I've read tens or likely even 100 forum topics on ETFs as well. All this time spent, and the way they work and their benefits over our 3-fund portfolio of index funds are still unclear to me, so this is likely the final time I read/post about them. If they are too complex and confusing for me to understand, then there's no way my completely-uninterested-in-finance wife will spend the time, after I'm gone, understanding/managing them that I would. A possible meager difference in return doesn't outweigh the risk/time invested for us.

I understand that ETFs are very simple for many Bogleheads and I hope their time, money, and effort pays off for them, but it's too complex for me and my family. I'll stick with A) not buying things I don't understand, B) being content with "good enough," and C) simplicity.
Your preference is for mutual funds, not index funds. As I’ve posted above, the vast majority of ETFs are index funds, certainly more than for mutual funds.

An argument that mutual funds are more “simple” doesn’t make any sense to me. ETFs are standardized instruments (they have to be to be traded on an exchange). There is only one ETF “class” while there may be 8-10 different classes of a mutual fund. How would you explain this to your wife: https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-fu ... re-classes

columbia
Posts: 1753
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:30 am

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by columbia » Sun Jun 16, 2019 8:01 am

If you non transparent funds AND ETFs, you can now do that:

https://www.etf.com/sections/etf-strate ... nopaging=1

Silence Dogood
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:22 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by Silence Dogood » Sun Jun 16, 2019 8:22 am

JTColton wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:58 pm
Silence Dogood wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:27 pm
I think that the main concern the OP had is that there is now the perception (reality?) that Vanguard is promoting ETFs over mutual funds.

The OP wanted to know the rationality behind this decision.

I think that his/her concerns could have been addressed more appropriately.
Completely false, from the OP he is trying make a case against ETFs based solely on factors of human behavior.

He only mentions Vanguard at all in the OP tangentially in reference to a specific fund.
I'm trying to understand why the OP wrote the OP in the first place.

Why do you think the OP wrote the OP?
schooner wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:13 pm
The most disconcerting part is that Vanguard is pushing this stuff like candy: 1800 Commission Free ETFs, hooray! Where is the Vanguard study on how their investors perform after switching to ETFs.
schooner wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:18 pm
I’m a Vanguard investor and very unhappy about their move to ETFs. While it helps Vanguard lower record keeping costs, it hurts a lot of people who are going to start trading more frequently. It’s really sad to watch.
schooner wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:40 pm
My concern is with the why instead of the why not. If something is working well (traditional index mutual funds), why switch? How can an ETF improve a retirement account? Where are the academic studies to support the switch? Why hasn’t Vanguard studied this itself before switching millions of retirement accounts.
schooner wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:46 am
Nummerkins wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:39 am
The industy is heading towards brokerage's and ETFs -- Vanguard included. Doesn't mean it's good or bad, it just is.
True, but where is the data to back up the switch? Vanguard is responsible to its investors not shareholders. Are investors, as a whole, better off or worse off?
schooner wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:03 am
I’ve wondered the same thing. I think they are either selling ETF order flow or using a few ETFs as loss leaders to sell higher priced services. With 1800 ETFs (like Vanguard now offers), you’ll need an “advisor” to select the best options.

I expect it at most brokerage firms, but it’s disappointing to see Vanguard go the same route
schooner wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:57 am
Where are the studies to support ETFs? Vanguard has migrated a lot of investors from MFs to ETFs. Where is the performance data on that transition?

Vanguard has 129 mutual funds but offers 1,800 commission free ETFs. Those are a lot of funds. Hard to believe the move to ETFs isn't causing people to trade more often, hurting returns.

Silence Dogood
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:22 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by Silence Dogood » Sun Jun 16, 2019 8:28 am

HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:51 am
zeal wrote:
Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:38 am
Personally, I will stick with index funds over ETFs. Index funds can be explained in detail in a paragraph or two. I have read every page in the wiki that references or explains ETFs, and I've read them several times over. I've read tens or likely even 100 forum topics on ETFs as well. All this time spent, and the way they work and their benefits over our 3-fund portfolio of index funds are still unclear to me, so this is likely the final time I read/post about them. If they are too complex and confusing for me to understand, then there's no way my completely-uninterested-in-finance wife will spend the time, after I'm gone, understanding/managing them that I would. A possible meager difference in return doesn't outweigh the risk/time invested for us.

I understand that ETFs are very simple for many Bogleheads and I hope their time, money, and effort pays off for them, but it's too complex for me and my family. I'll stick with A) not buying things I don't understand, B) being content with "good enough," and C) simplicity.
Your preference is for mutual funds, not index funds. As I’ve posted above, the vast majority of ETFs are index funds, certainly more than for mutual funds.

An argument that mutual funds are more “simple” doesn’t make any sense to me. ETFs are standardized instruments (they have to be to be traded on an exchange). There is only one ETF “class” while there may be 8-10 different classes of a mutual fund. How would you explain this to your wife: https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-fu ... re-classes
It doesn't have to make sense to you. If zeal prefers mutual funds, that's perfectly fine.

If you prefer ETFs, that's perfectly fine, too.

There is nothing to argue about here.

Silence Dogood
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:22 pm

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by Silence Dogood » Sun Jun 16, 2019 8:30 am

nisiprius wrote:
Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:37 am
Mutual funds and ETFs are exactly the same. There is no difference between them. Zero. It does not matter at all. It is entirely personal preference. People familiar with bank accounts often prefer mutual funds. People familiar with stock transactions often prefer ETFs.

That may not be absolutely true, but it is close to true, and it is closer to true than any statement I've seen that ends up with the conclusion that "mutual funds are better" or "ETFs are better."

All discussions that try to come to some general, single conclusion about which is better is angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff. It isn't even "which is better, Toyota or Honda?" It is more like "Which is better, a silver Toyota Camry or a pearl Toyota Camry?" Well, the silver is 0.1% more visible. Yeah, but the pearl has 0.1% higher resale value. Yeah, but the pearl touch-up paint is $5.95 and the silver touch-up paint is $6.95.
nisiprius, trying to get everyone to stop arguing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9ZD3_ppcPE

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 55908
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: The Case Against ETFs

Post by LadyGeek » Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:47 am

This thread has run its course and is locked (topic exhausted). See: Locked Topics
Moderators or site admins may lock a topic (set it so no more replies may be added) when a violation of posting policy has occurred. Occasionally, even if there are no overt violations of posting policy, a topic (or thread) will reach a point where the information content of the discussion has been essentially exhausted and further replies are much more likely to cause distress to the community than add anything of value.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

Locked