I can't imagine that after paying commission on 500 stocks (do you really mean stocks?) it would be cheaper. Further if he meant buy the nine ETFs it depends on how many shares you buy plus you are looking at a new commission for every ETF when you rebalance.
One thing I did not get to in the GreenFaucet post or in the video is that I would rather make decisions on each sector, this would be obvious to anyone who has read this blog for a while. One investment advisor was quoted in IndexUniverse's coverage of this fund talking about the benefits of not being overweight certain sectors. Yes there clearly are benefits to not being overweight certain sectors but what if something horrible happens in utilities and/or materials you'd be hideously overweight those two. I would submit there would be much more benefit to taking these reigns yourself as opposed to always targeting the same 11% in each sector no matter what is happening.
2 comments:
off topic question: thanks
http://www.openmarket.org/2008/10/07/everbank-can-multiply-your-financial-woes/
Roger, as I remember you purchased
a CD thru Everbank awhile back...
have you run into this problem?
Roger. I did mean the underlying stocks when I asked the question, but I see your point about the expense--especially for a small investor--of all the re-balancing this strategy would have to absorb. The expense of re-balancing via the ETFs would, I expect, also probably not be cost effective for a small investor. This ETF definitely has merit.
Thanks for the response and for the blog,
JCarr
Post a Comment