@TaxAlphaInsider The funny thing about the Coreo deal was they negotiated to what someone with eight figures should pay anyway, 0.50% or less. Wealth management and tax in one place adds a ton of value. If he’s tired of thinking about, outsource it and make sure he’s getting value for the fee.
@MFintwit@HML_Compounder And who doesn’t have equity in their portfolio their entire life? It’s the most tax-efficient way to own it. And you can spend some of it tax free every year (unless you need the losses for something else).
@ItsWhoYouKnow_@scottsalaske 3/ Delphi’s value is ordinary loss creation, not capital loss. Capital losses don’t end when you reach basis, they’re suspended, and can be unlocked by future gains in the fund or through liquidation. You should still benefit from ordinary loss creation. Every year.
@ItsWhoYouKnow_@scottsalaske 2/ Implementation matters. A 1.5% tracking error L/S is not the same as AQR’s market neutral L/S. Can’t rule out anything, but consider the risks and tradeoffs as part of the decision. The fact that it can’t be definitively ruled out doesn’t mean it won’t add value over time.
@ItsWhoYouKnow_@scottsalaske 1/ Ultimately you are trading the uncertainty of pre-tax alpha for the certainty of tax-alpha. We have different views on the probability that pre-tax alpha is positive over time. However I think the probability that negative alpha and fees overcomes tax alpha is very low.
@ItsWhoYouKnow_@scottsalaske Never said it was assured, but given you need an economic substance argument, it has the best defense. That being said, I’d suggest Rob Arnott’s Malkiel’s monkey article. Pretty much anything that rebalances to something other than market cap is better than a cap weighted index.
@ItsWhoYouKnow_@scottsalaske 5/ L/S never exhausts tax alpha. No matter what implementation of US equity, eventually I’m stuck with it unless I want to pay tax: ETF, DI, L/S. But L/S gives me the most flexibility and optionality. And unless Fama/French is wrong, the alpha isn’t that elusive.
@ItsWhoYouKnow_@scottsalaske 4/ At minimum, with the benefit of perpetual loss generation, L/S should be able to maintain more consistent tracking error than DI, which over time has to realize gains to maintain tracking error. That’s negative alpha. And I get no tax alpha out of ETFs.
@ItsWhoYouKnow_@scottsalaske 3/ For decades direct indexers made the case that their tax alpha was worth their fee. If L/S at minimum triples tax alpha over 10 years, for 10bps more expense and financing fees that are tax deductible, that’s a pretty low bar for pre-tax alpha.
@ItsWhoYouKnow_@scottsalaske 2/ if zero tracking error is #1 priority, then yes own index ETFs. The question is whether the tax alpha is worth tracking error risk, and if the tracking error is positive enough net of fees to make the tax alpha worth it.
@ItsWhoYouKnow_@scottsalaske Who doesn’t have realized gains in their life? Unless someone is never spending their portfolio or rebalancing, loss harvesting has value. At minimum a base TA L/S should produce 5% losses annually. At LTCG that’s at least 1% tax alpha, forever. Plus whatever pre-tax alpha…
@spencerjogden@MarkTMeredith@ElmWealth If you don’t unwind the strategy, losses continue to accumulate in perpetuity. You can withdraw a percentage each year tax free so you can use it…