= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Larks comments on [LINK] Bets do not (necessarily) reveal beliefs - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (22)
It's even harder to do when you're young and your portfolio is 100% cash (and human capital).
Is there a reason a company doesn't offer S&P- products - S&P minus a specific industry. If the bank diversified their customer they could just buy straight index funds and then distribute the returns differentially.
Sector ETFs are already pretty inexpensive on an expense ratio basis. Vanguard's sector ETFs for example have expense ratios of 0.14%, which compares with an expense ratio of 0.05% for the cheapest S&P500 ETF. A bank wouldn't be able to do it any cheaper, realistically. Someone could offer ETFs that exclude particular sectors, but it just hasn't been done, and I still don't think it would be cheaper because of economies of scale for the funds that currently have the most capital.
You do have to have a certain amount of capital to successfully diversify using ETFs, obviously, but the bank doesn't really care about you either if you aren't investing at least a few thousand.