There is a notion that one should not just invest in different assets, but also, invest in different ways people pick assets (value, growth, etc). Why? Well, diversification, the answer goes!
Here's the thing. Investor says "I want to diversify, so I'll invest in value style investing, and also in growth style investing." He buys one fund, Value Fund, which owns GE, IBM, and, let's say, Citigroup. Then he buys "Growth Fund" which owns GE, IBM and Citigroup. See the problem? No real diversification at all, so paying Value Fund and Growth Fund to invest in GE, IBM and C costs me money for nothing.
Oh, and here is the other thing. Buying a "strategy" instead of a hard asset, like a stock, or bond, or commodity, just for the sake of diversification can lead to silly results. Picture it. Alex sets up a new ETF, and what this fund does is as follows: Alex will conk himself on the head with a giant banana, and if he passes out, he'll buy Citibank stock. If he doesn't pass out, he'll sell Citibank stock short. He will keep on conking and conking as long as he is able, or until the banana goes rotten and squishy, whichever happens first. To get a slice of this action, Alex charges investors a nice big fat fee. This new "strategy" ETF of Alex's offers returns that have to do with virtually anything at all, no correlation to the Dow Jones or anything else (other than the stupidity of anyone willing to purchase the Alex Banana ETF). Make sense to own the Alex ETF for diversification? I hope not! The rational investor in this example would just buy Citibank, or sell it short, and cut out the Alex middleman entirely. If you don't agree, let me know - I've got a big giant banana just waiting.
Last year should have taught us one big lesson: Invest in assets, not financial engineering and other forms of hot air. If you like hot air, though, then for goodness sake, don't buy it off the shelf at nominally bargain basement prices. The idea that some ETF sponsor is going to eat Goldman Sach's lunch by downmarketing Goldman trading strategies is absurd.
ProShares Launches First-Ever 130/30 Strategy ETF (CSM) [View article]
Here's the thing. Investor says "I want to diversify, so I'll invest in value style investing, and also in growth style investing." He buys one fund, Value Fund, which owns GE, IBM, and, let's say, Citigroup. Then he buys "Growth Fund" which owns GE, IBM and Citigroup. See the problem? No real diversification at all, so paying Value Fund and Growth Fund to invest in GE, IBM and C costs me money for nothing.
Oh, and here is the other thing. Buying a "strategy" instead of a hard asset, like a stock, or bond, or commodity, just for the sake of diversification can lead to silly results. Picture it. Alex sets up a new ETF, and what this fund does is as follows: Alex will conk himself on the head with a giant banana, and if he passes out, he'll buy Citibank stock. If he doesn't pass out, he'll sell Citibank stock short. He will keep on conking and conking as long as he is able, or until the banana goes rotten and squishy, whichever happens first. To get a slice of this action, Alex charges investors a nice big fat fee. This new "strategy" ETF of Alex's offers returns that have to do with virtually anything at all, no correlation to the Dow Jones or anything else (other than the stupidity of anyone willing to purchase the Alex Banana ETF). Make sense to own the Alex ETF for diversification? I hope not! The rational investor in this example would just buy Citibank, or sell it short, and cut out the Alex middleman entirely. If you don't agree, let me know - I've got a big giant banana just waiting.
Last year should have taught us one big lesson: Invest in assets, not financial engineering and other forms of hot air. If you like hot air, though, then for goodness sake, don't buy it off the shelf at nominally bargain basement prices. The idea that some ETF sponsor is going to eat Goldman Sach's lunch by downmarketing Goldman trading strategies is absurd.