Over time, more and more people are seeing the benefits of investing in stocks and bonds through low-cost index funds. Here is a chart from showing the overall flow of assets out of actively-managed and into passively-managed US equity funds over the last 15 years.
For a while, people wondered if low-cost digital advisors that managed a portfolio of index funds for a modest fee would take over. The picture looks a little different today.
Wealthfront was one of the early digital-only startups, promising to manage a diversified portfolio of low-cost ETFs for you for a modest 0.25% of assets, even if you had as little as $500 to invest. They tried a few different things over the years, including changing up their model portfolios, trying to add a in-house risk-parity fund, and even recently adding crypto and individual stock options. Their final move came this week, when they announced they would be sold to . This wasn’t exactly a huge exit, given the huge amount of venture capital they had burned through over the years. As usual with such acquisitions, they promise both “nothing will change” and “things will only get better”.
In hindsight, I am relieved that I didn’t let Wealthfront handle my assets. They clearly had no firm guiding principles, tweaking their portfolios with each new trend. Based on the reporting, it looks like they sold their customers to the , as UBS is not exactly known for low-cost passive investing. This play is widely seen a way for UBS to obtain young investors that will one day be rich (read: one day will generate lots of wealth management fees). See and .
Is this move what is best for Wealthfront’s customers? Or what was best for Wealthfront’s investors? Mark the date. I will be checking to see what Wealthfront clients own in 5 and 10 years, if that is still possible. Keep in mind that any portfolio changes usually result in taxable events.
Funds flowed into index funds for a simple reason: they performed better and made folks more money. Index funds performed better primarily due to low costs and low turnover (low tax costs). However, it doesn’t appear that Wealthfront could operate successfully independently while offering low costs. One way or another, the new owners are going to try and extract more money per client either via portfolio changes or higher fee products.
Unfortunately, I worry that even Vanguard, in its pursuit of growth, is gradually going down the same path as many large nonprofits. Many “nonprofits” are huge bureaucracies that chase money as eagerly as any corporation – more money means bigger salaries to management, more political power, and greater career advancement. (Side note: I thought that Vanguard got away with their with little media attention, but now see: .)
I don’t write much about robo-advisors any more. They showed promise initially, but apparently the business model just isn’t working.
“The editorial content here is not provided by any of the companies mentioned, and has not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any of these entities. Opinions expressed here are the author’s alone. This email may contain links through which we are compensated when you click on or are approved for offers.”
from .
Copyright © 2004-2021 MyMoneyBlog.com. All Rights Reserved. Do not re-syndicate without permission.