People pay a fee because they are told that the fund will bring them higher returns (or less risk, etc.).
That's not how it sounds from the article and its source
What Stash tries to add, and what it’s charging users for, is both the unique framing of the funds and ease of use.
Investing in these tech or green energy companies is “self expression,” Robinson said, even if a bog-simple Vanguard index ETF plan “is probably the smart investment.”
Of course, there are still a great many young adults who are more focused on their returns. For them, Stash has an “I Want” tab that includes more diverse investments with snazzy labels.
“We talked to 100 people, and we heard the same thing over and over again: the whole concept of investing was confusing, it was expensive, it was unrelatable, it isn’t my world,” Ronick said about the conversations.
There's nothing there that implies an expectation of getting a higher return that if they'd invest traditionally.
Do you at least agree that Stash claims it's doing what Matt claims it is? And you then think that Stash is wrong about what motivates its users?
I think the key word here is "marketing".
“We talked to 100 people, and we heard the same thing over and over again: the whole concept of investing was confusing, it was expensive, it was unrelatable, it isn’t my world,”
This is not consumption preferences. This is needing to do something you have no idea about -- so you go to whoever claims to be an expert and you believe whatever he tells you. There are many people claiming to be experts, so it becomes crucial to use the right marketing to lure in the marks... err. customers. The old marketi...
Another month, another rationality quotes thread. The rules are: