@safimona3 They both include profitability, defined differently, and with a different implementation. There are merits to each, but I have a preference.
6/Many of the Avantis ETFs give equal consideration to value and profitability, rather than one before the other. The difference between their funds usually comes from which market segment their selection criteria is applied to.
5/Look at both together and the distortions are largely canceled out. The company may look expensive on one measure but highly profitable on the other.
That's why many factor-based strategies use profitability and value instead of relying on either one by itself.
So many old friendships are rekindled on days like this:
"Hey man I know we haven't talked since Douglas Hall at EIU but you work in finance right? Can you tell me what is happening to TQQQ?"
@WallStHoops Got ya, that is certainly unique. You think that drives the yield down? Could be. The bank I worked at only charged 3 months of interest for an early redemption.
It always amuses me when local banks heavily advertise “CD specials” that are substantially below equivalent US Treasury rates, even before accounting for state income tax savings.
If we don’t think we can serve them profitably (accounting for time involved) we will recommend another firm. Also, in recent years I have added some flexibility to the annual fee, so in overly complex situations we can charge more. Right now that applies to less than 2% of our households though.
Not many of our clients historically have come from wirehouses. Flat fee attracts a totally different client from when I was an AUM fee advisor, one that usually was DIY but would prefer an advisor at a certain price point.
I think flat fee expands the addressable market (VERY slightly), rather than takes market share from anyone.