It is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS to suggest ETFs are similar to Grape Bricks which were a means to circumvent the law.ByThePond wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:29 amSorry you feel that way.Earl Lemongrab wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:40 pmAbsolutely ridiculous. I can't stand these comments about "anti-Boglehead". There are MANY of us on the forum with good index portfolios that are composed of ETFs. Why would you be so insulting to the people here?
However, I agree with Nisiprius that there is an element that seems contrary to buy-and-hold inherent in an instrument that is designed to be traded. Not that they can't be useful.
I don't think that's ridiculous at all. Nothing "anti-Boglehead" at all, and nothing insulting implied.
Being called "absolutely ridiculous" , however, IS explicitly insulting.
I am an American and as such, am effectively prevented by law from both buying mutual funds and investing in overseas funds as I work where my employment has taken me. To suggest that, in following the letter of the law, I am similar to a person who deliberately chooses a product that is designed to break the law is absolutely ridiculous. It's beyond absurd and patently offensive.
I have not chosen ETFs as a vehicle to circumvent the law. Isn't that what Grape Bricks were? A way to break a law you didn't agree with. Why should I be viewed through that moral lens?
I would also suggest it's contrary to Bogleheadism to pay more than you have to for a fund and to pay more in taxes than you should.