Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
As noted by comment to M* article (below), the M* author seems to be missing the point or burying the lead. The major source of difference is not strategy, but E.T.F.'s structure.
If it was the case that it was "strategy" that was most important (as M* claims) then M* could simply have provided difference between indexed mutual funds (with/without Vanguard), and compared apples-to-apples. They did not. I expect it is because it does not support their convoluted argument.
Thanks to 'yogibearbull' and Ted.
Also - who ever claimed that ETFs were immune from taxation anyway? M* just doesn't understand ETFs....
yogibearbull
Surprising/strange that the tax-efficiency resulting from in-kind creation/redemption process rates so low - at "2nd(3)". And the item rated 1st applies less to non-market-cap indexed [smart/strategic beta] ETFs.
Comments
If it was the case that it was "strategy" that was most important (as M* claims) then M* could simply have provided difference between indexed mutual funds (with/without Vanguard), and compared apples-to-apples. They did not. I expect it is because it does not support their convoluted argument.
Thanks to 'yogibearbull' and Ted.
Also - who ever claimed that ETFs were immune from taxation anyway? M* just doesn't understand ETFs....