You are viewing the chat in desktop mode. Click here to switch to mobile view.
X
ETF.com Live Chat!
powered byJotCast
Dave Nadig
2:00
Good afternoon, and welcome to ETF.com Live!
You can enter in any questions you have in the box below and I'll get to as many as I can in the next half hour.  Apologies in advance if we run short of time.  I give preference to questions actually about ETFs!
At the end of this, we'll post a transcript, in case you have to duck out, at the same URL.
2:01
With that, let's get rolling!
MusicMan
2:01
Today's soundtrack is ...
Dave Nadig
2:01
Little indy band from New England, Palehound, just dropped an awesome new album called Black Friday
Todd Rosenbluth- CFRA Research
2:01
Hi Dave. Great piece highlighting the communication skills challenge with smart beta. Do you think multifactor ETFs would be better off including quality, value, momentum in their names to show what ingredients are part of their recipes?
Dave Nadig
2:02
There's no question that ETFs have a labeling problem, but I'm not sure adding more words to the titles of the funds is going to help a lot.
I mean "iShares Quality Value Momentum U.S. Equity Multifactor" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
2:03
My hope is that someone doesn't just jump into a more complex strategy like a multifactor ETF without at least reading a fund description.
In general, I think we (both us, and the broader ETF community) do a pretty good job once we get to reports and editorial coverage and fund descriptions.
2:04
But it's a bit of a losing battle.  Products are only going to get more complex, not less.  I think what's needed is different media.
I don't see a lot of good "explainer videos" for new products, or Prezi's with voiceovers, or other things.
I see a lot of long fact sheets, whitepapers, occasionally with math.
I love math.  But math doesn't sell.
So I think its way beyond titles Todd.  Way beyond.
T Lynch
2:04
Sir: Simply put, I wish to invest in a pool of ETFs that would be chosen, rebalanced, actively overseen by a paid manager. However, I find the the standard 1% fee to defeat one of the greatest appeals of ETFS....their low cost.
Dave Nadig
2:05
So this is an interesting question.  And we get this a lot -- how do i find/what should I look for in a financial advisor.
I agree, paying 1% to someone just to manage a simple ETF model is a bit much.  For 1%, you should be receiving a lot more service than just asset allocation.  I'd say 1% is at the "boutique" level of service.
2:06
There are many advisors out there who charge half that (or less) for large accounts, honestly.
But if you're not looking for an actual advisor, this is really what the roboadvice market is all about.
2:07
whether its the free offerings from folks like Schwab, or the unaffiliated folks at Wealthfront or Betterment, you can get this kind of thing for 25 basis points or less.
It's not that there's nothing worth 1%.  It's just that for that, you should expect a lot in return -- not portfolio returns.  Service returns.
marty
2:08
Dave, has the low-vol sector become overbought?
Dave Nadig
2:08
Hi Marty, this is a chance for me to highlight one of my FAVORITE tools on the web, and we don't even run it!  The Research Affiliates Smart Beta page:
Here's a link that hopefully gets you to the right chart:
2:09
What that shows you is the current valuation of all the major factors, vs historical norms.
It would suggest that LowVol is trading at historical peak valuations -- its very expensive right now.
2:10
Value looks cheap, pretty much everything else is median or above.
There's a lot of really interesting research about whether aggregate valuation is a kind of "overriding" factor on factor investing (much of it by research affiliates).
But that tool at RA, I cannot recommend more highly.  It's super cool, and very very well put together.
Don
2:11
Not an ETF question, so you may not answer I understand, but what is the difference between a financial advisor and and certified financial planner?
Dave Nadig
2:11
So, this is really about minor definitions.  Anyone, essentially, can call themselves an "advisor"
Its sort of like calling yourself a "personal trainer" -- it's aspirational.
a CFP means the person did a bunch of actual studying in order to get a certification.
2:12
the CFP is a SERIOUS cert.
Much like a CFA
it requires, if I recall, several thousand hours (read, years) of practice, on top of educational requirements.  Its a real thing.
Load More Messages
Connecting…