Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

When I looked at it the fees were way to high to justify to bogelheads.

What is strange to me about robo advisors is that they are still charging a management fee instead of a flat fee. The algorithms are really basic and don’t have any real time changes so it seems weird to charge 25-50 basis points for what’s basically just an interview and time based rebalancing with some formulas that aren’t really better than existing ETFs.

I’ve been expecting this to just be a feature for vanguard and fidelity since the “advise” could just be client side automation rules that nobody wants to build.



Tax loss harvesting alone has more than paid the 25 bps fee that Wealthfront charges. It's a no-brainer to me. I'm very happy with Wealthfront.


Agreed. To me target date retirement funds honestly make more sense for most people.


I'm not sure about that. Targets funds fees are generally a percent not flat, you have less control over your money (which if you're doing a robo-advisor you probably have somewhat bespoke investing requirements) and they only make sense for tax-advantaged accounts (see [1]).

Plus, people invest for reasons other than dated retirement targets.

[1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/vanguard-target-retirement-tax-...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: