facebookETF vs Mutual Funds. A heated debate. Let me share what I feel about these investment vehicles. - Seedly

ETF vs Mutual Funds. A heated debate. Let me share what I feel about these investment vehicles.

Hi everyone, I am starting this discussion by expressing my personal opinions about ETFs and Mutual Funds. Please feel free to agree or disagree. We are all here to learn new things and explore new perspectives.

Essentially, both ETFs and Mutual Funds allow investors to build a diversified portfolio at a significantly lower cost because they take advantage of economies of scale. The main differentiating factor is their investing style and distribution channels.

ETFs mostly follow a passive investing strategy, which means their sole purpose is to track a particular index. Due to its passive strategy, ETFs charge only a small management fee (usually less than 0.5%p.a.). The only way to invest in an ETF is to buy it through an exchange.

Mutual funds on the other hand, mostly consist of an active investment strategy where fund managers pick and choose stocks that they have researched on. Because mutual funds involve active stock picking, they charge a higher management fee (usually 1-2%p.a.). They are not traded on exchanges but are marketed by various distribution channels such as banks and insurance companies.

Historically, the majority of mutual funds across sectors and geography fail to outperform their benchmarks. Research has shown that there are 2 main reasons for this. Firstly, the high fees of Mutual Funds can drag down returns significantly. Secondly, the markets in developed countries are mostly efficient, hence there is little room for Mutual Funds to outperform the markets. This historical underperformance of Mutual Funds has led to a huge shift in investment monies towards ETFs.

A quick youtube or google search and you should be able to find many financial gurus telling people to just buy ETFs because they are cheaper, and tend to outperform Mutual Funds. Some even discourage people from even trying to invest in Mutual Funds. They seem to preach the idea that ETFs are the way forward and that Mutual Funds are just out there to earn money from investors by charging expensive fees. The recent performance of Temasek's portfolio also came under fire after failing to outperform the S&P500.

This is where I come in to give my 2cents. While I acknowledge that ETFs are a great way for investors to diversify at a low cost, I would be cautious against the growing trend of ETF investing. Investments in financial assets has only become available to retail investors in recent years. In the early 2000s, there is no MooMoo or IBKR for investors like you and me to just buy into any ETF or stock we wish. The only outlet for us to invest our monies is through insurance companies and banks, which are distribution channels for mutual funds. Hence the market for ETFs is generally very small.

In my opinion, this is precisely why the markets have been so efficient historically. Because there are many fund managers out there buying and selling stocks, price discovery happens and the current market price generally reflects all available information. Now that almost half the world's funds are being invested in ETFs, I am not so convinced that the concept of an efficient market will continue to hold. With more investors adopting the "just buy ETF and hold for life" mentality, we could potentially enter a stage where instead of monies being allocated to the most profitable business, they may just flow to the largest companies within a market. This allocation of resources then becomes inefficient. When this happens, there will be so much more opportunities for research to turn into higher gains for Mutual Funds.

The point I am trying to get across is: Mutual Funds and active managers are the ones that gives the markets its efficiency. It would be inappropriate to completely shut down Mutual Funds just because of historical underperformance.

Lastly it is also worth noting that since the rise of ETFs, Mutual Funds have already lowered their fees compared to the past. We can also expect the introduction of RoboAdisors to put downward pressure on the fees that Mutual Funds charge.

These are just my own opinions based on my own research. Please share with me your thoughts. Do you agree or disagree that ETFs are the only way we should invest moving forward?

Discussion (25)

What are your thoughts?

Learn how to style your text

KEEF LIM

07 Sep 2021

Senior Relationship Manager, AFP at Synergy Financial Advisers

Wow! First off - great writing, you've definitely put a lot of research and thoughts into this.

I especially love the bit about market efficiency.

As an adviser for my clients, we focus a lot on unit trusts/mutual fund vehicles as a form of investing or participating in the market. Here's my 2 cents to give some additional perspective into your discussion thread and FYI - it's just my opinion.

The best answer is that there is no 1 way or Only way to invest moving forward. Competition is necessary in order for the economy to move up. Businesses compete to improve their productivity and balance sheets and in turn, improve the economy through their contributions (products/taxes etc).

With all the variables you can think of, an investor namely faces 2 concerns

1) Can the underlying vehicle perform (performance)

2) How much is the cost to participate (fees)

Truth be told, I dare say NO ONE (not even buffet himself) can give you a solid guarantee on 1). But competition is challenged and extremely important in 2).

If we were to say only invest when brokerage firms/robo advisories/investment firms - all charge 0%. Where is the effort and result going to come from? There is a large community of investors who are against UTs simply because they feel the fees charged are way higher than ETFs. You brought up a valid point in considering assessibility of investments in comparison to pre 2000s.

If everyone is blindly investing in the ETFs (index) without fully understanding what is inside these ETFs, we're contributing to herd mentality and when the ball drops, it will fall hard.

ETFs (index) are great for diversification no doubt. Fees are low for a reason as there's little to no work done other than administrative and operational. Comparing ETFs (index) to UTs is like expecting sushi from 7/11 to be better than an omakase menu. Not only is that unfair but it's also pretty sad. Is that to say that the omakase menu will always be better? Of course not. But can we always say the 7/11 sushi will be better than omakase? I beg to differ.

My final point in this long response being - the two vehicles serve different consumer markets. I strongly believe (and recommend) diversifying as it allows us to cover our unknowns (whether we do not have the time to research or the interest to follow closely). Whilst you may get the winning companies in the S&P500, let's not pretend that we also hold the losing companies in the basket of 500. The FAANGM stocks namely make up close to 25-28% of the S&P500. That's to say every $1 we invest, approx 0.25c goes to that group. A professionally managed UT's role is to steer away from simply passive investing and create or exploit areas of market inefficiencies for better returns. There are good and bad funds no doubt and it is the investors job to recognise which are which. Not all sushi are great, but not all of them are bad either!

View 4 replies

Robin

07 Sep 2021

Administrator at SG

ETFs as compared to mutual funds are less diversified. eg. SNP500 =500 US top companies where's mutual funds normally consist of many stocks and ETFs (up to 5000 stocks?). ETFs may be more volatile but the returns can be more than mutual funds as they are not overly diversified.

View 1 replies

I even hold a (single) mutual fund. but otherwise passive ETFs are a success story. why choosing mut...

Write your thoughts