Robo Investing firms trumpet the virtues of passive investing. But in order to buy the market, one first has to define the market – and the definitions one chooses are where the action is. Today, we’ll take a look the active portfolio choices (market definitions or asset choices; wink, wink) made by robo giants, Wealthfront and Betterment.
Lessons From LEGOs
In order to invest in “the” market, we’d need a single vehicle (e.g., an ETF) whose portfolio includes all investable assets (stocks, fixed income, derivatives) throughout the world. There are ETFs that represent pieces of the whole pie, but none come close to really representing all of it. So the best anyone can do is define a set of ETFs that will represent one’s own personally designed custom market.
Envision ETFs used by robo-investing firms as LEGO blocks. Much of their success or lack thereof in serving their clients will depend on the choices they make regarding the kind of structure (“market”) each cobbles together using whichever blocks catch its fancy.
Comparing Two Robo Market Constructions
My last post contained some detail on how Wealthfront made its choices, and from what I can see Bettement seems to have gone through a very similar process. Tables 1 and 2 show how each firm constructed its market as pertains to standard and IRA accounts respectively. (In each case, these choices are for a slightly conservative mainstream risk profile that rates 4 out of 10 based on Wealthfront’s scale).
Table 1 – Standard
* My estimate of allocations based on Wealthfront’s allocation protocol
Table 2 – IRA
* My estimate of allocations based on Wealthfront’s allocation protocol
Leave A Comment