I think it’s important to note here that their fee is $12 a year.
I don’t see how this is a meaningful number. The cost to the user is much higher since they’re now stuck in a high-fee fund. And I’m pretty sure that a lot of Stash’s revenue comes from something other than $12/user/year. In particular, high-fee funds tend to pay commissions to those who sell them.
I think a much better analogy would have been “drink tap water instead of bottled water.” It’s a more similar instance of paying explicitly for branding with a misguided understanding of what’s for sale. (i.e. most bottle water is literally tap water)
I think a much better analogy would have been “drink tap water instead of bottled water.”
I drink bottled water. I don’t care about branding in general, but the particular water which I drink tastes different from the water in my tap and I can easily recognize the difference.
I don’t see how this is a meaningful number. The cost to the user is much higher since they’re now stuck in a high-fee fund. And I’m pretty sure that a lot of Stash’s revenue comes from something other than $12/user/year. In particular, high-fee funds tend to pay commissions to those who sell them.
I think a much better analogy would have been “drink tap water instead of bottled water.” It’s a more similar instance of paying explicitly for branding with a misguided understanding of what’s for sale. (i.e. most bottle water is literally tap water)
I drink bottled water. I don’t care about branding in general, but the particular water which I drink tastes different from the water in my tap and I can easily recognize the difference.