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’re going to be compared too. If you’re selling to harvest tax losses, I’ll bet there are some deviations at the fractions of a percent level that might erase all my savings.
Move fast and break things works great for computer startups, but if you want me to move my life savings over I need more confidence that you’re going to be around in 40 years and still have my accounts intact. And if I’m not bringing my life savings over, then it’s not worth the effort, because investments at the $10k level don’t really save me money.
Good luck finding early adopters who have money to throw at investment schemes.
>Move fast and break things works great for computer startups, but if you want me to move my life savings over I need more confidence that you’re coming to be around in 40 years and still have my accounts intact.
That's exactly my opinion of this. It's fine to innovate, but when you're dealing something like life savings, long-term stability is the most important requirement that comes to mind. Anyone building an investment firm on VC money is immediately suspect, because VCs don't particularly care about long-term viability.
Move fast and break things works great for computer startups, but if you want me to move my life savings over I need more confidence that you’re going to be around in 40 years and still have my accounts intact. And if I’m not bringing my life savings over, then it’s not worth the effort, because investments at the $10k level don’t really save me money.
Good luck finding early adopters who have money to throw at investment schemes.