Yahoo Finance

Cons

• Higher capital requirement: Direct indexing typically requires a larger amount of capital compared to investing in mutual funds or ETFs. To achieve adequate diversification and minimize risk, investors may need a high level of assets, such as $1 million or higher, to purchase a broad range of individual stocks.

• Increased complexity: Direct indexing involves selecting, monitoring and managing individual stocks, which requires more time, knowledge and expertise. Investors must stay informed about market trends, perform fundamental analysis and make informed decisions regarding their portfolio.

• Transaction costs: Buying and selling individual stocks can result in higher transaction costs compared to investing in a mutual fund or ETF. Frequent trading or rebalancing activities may lead to increased brokerage fees and potentially impact overall portfolio returns.

• Active management challenges: Direct indexing blurs the line between passive and active investing. While investors have more control over their portfolios, they need to actively manage their holdings, monitor market trends and make timely investment decisions. This active management can be challenging and may lead to suboptimal outcomes if not executed effectively. It may also lead to reliance on advisors, which can lead to higher costs.

Direct Indexing vs ETFs

Direct indexing and ETFs share similar investment approaches but have some key differences. Direct indexing may be suitable for high-net-worth individuals seeking customization, tax optimization and greater control over their portfolios. By comparison, ETFs provide instant diversification, lower capital requirements and ease of use for investors seeking a simpler, more hands-off approach.

Here are the key differences between direct indexing and ETFs:

• Customization and control: With direct indexing, investors can select individual securities and hold them directly in a portfolio that aligns with their preferences, investment objectives, or values. While ETF investors don’t control the portfolio holdings, and don’t directly hold the securities, they can buy low-cost funds with niche strategies.

• Tax efficiency: Investors can selectively sell individual stocks to realize tax losses, potentially offsetting gains in other parts of the portfolio. This can lead to tax savings and improved after-tax returns. While ETF investors can’t control this aspect, they generally offer tax efficiency, and investors can choose ETFs with specific tax strategies.

• Managing costs: Direct indexing can be cost effective compared to ETFs, especially for larger portfolios. By avoiding fund management fees, investors may achieve cost savings. However, direct indexing may require professional management and can potentially have higher transaction costs than ETFs due to higher trading frequency.

• Complexity versus simplicity: Direct indexing involves the selection, monitoring, and management of individual stocks. By comparison, investing in ETFs is generally simpler and requires less active involvement from investors, who can gain broad market exposure without needing to select and manage individual stocks.

• Investment minimum requirements: Direct indexing provides access to a wide range of assets that may be cost prohibitive to hold individually. ETFs allow investors to gain exposure to a diversified portfolio with relatively smaller amounts of capital compared to direct indexing.

• Passive management: Direct indexing blurs the lines between active and passive management. While most ETFs passively track an index and aim to replicate its performance, actively managed ETFs are growing in availability and diversity in the marketplace.

etf.com's Back-tested Direct Indexing Hypotheticals

Investors and advisors can see the potential benefits of direct indexing on any etf.com fund page. For example, when analyzing an ETF, users can click on the "Direct Indexing" tab in the left navigation panel. Users may then see multiple data point displays, including the "Annual Returns vs. Tax Alpha," which demonstrates the potential tax benefit, or excess return gained, from tax loss harvesting within a DI strategy.

The data comes from back-tested hypothetical performance of the Alphathena Direct Indexing Platform compared to a direct investment of the given ETF during the time period specified.

The table below shows the potential benefit of direct indexing, as illustrated on the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) fund page on etf.com:

Direct Indexing and Tax Loss Harvesting

While there's no guarantee of outperformance, direct indexing can offer the potential for higher returns by allowing for more active management and tax customization through tax-loss harvesting, which involves strategically selling investments that have decreased in value, locking in a capital loss. This loss can then be used to offset capital gains from other investments you've sold, thereby reducing your taxable income and potentially lowering your tax bill.

For example, imagine you own 10 shares of Company A that you bought for $10 per share ($100 total). The price has dropped to $8 per share. You could sell those 10 shares for a capital loss of $20 (10 shares * ($10 original price - $8 current price)). If you also sold other investments this year for a capital gain of $20, you could use your capital loss from Company A to offset that gain. This would reduce your taxable income by $20, potentially lowering your tax bill.

Bottom Line on Direct Indexing: Is DI Right for You?

Direct indexing allows investors to replicate an index by directly owning stocks within the respective index. However, a DI strategy has a higher capital requirement than ETFs, and it is typically designed for tax optimization; therefore, direct indexing may be best suited for high-net-worth individuals and institutional investors with taxable brokerage accounts.

Ultimately, the choice between direct indexing and ETFs depends on an investor's financial circumstances, individual preferences, and goals.

Permalink | © Copyright 2024 etf.com. All rights reserved