Good to see that they at least gave some instructions on moving the money (it was the absolute minimum, to be fair). No hate to them - some business don't work out.
That said, I personally don't understand keeping my assets that I hope to retire off of someday at a startup style company. Everyone's gotta start somewhere, but financial services like this are probably a hard sell for a lot of people.
I'm curious what led to the lack of demand for this—was it the friction involved in moving brokerage accounts, or do ETFs already meet the needs of most retail investors? A post-mortem on the limited traction would be quite insightful.
Sorry to hear. I know you are probably down right now but is there any chance you would be willing to share some details on why things didn't work out? I'd like to learn and I'm sure lots of others on HN would benifit from your experience.
This is the first I'd heard of something like this.
What other services are in the area of "Cheap automated portfolio management" that HN might recommend?
Saw some posts asking why and for postmortems. I am not the founder, not in the retail industry but adjacent space to understand enough of why.
1) there are already competitors in this space that have been there for a decade or longer. Higher fees but not significantly so to counter the risk of doing business with a startup.
2) If you use their calculator is a bit disingenuous, starting balance of $1mm. Those clients exist but that’s the minority. If you bring that number down to a more typical average or median for someone with a 30 year horizon you see that the difference is not material compared to their default assumptions.
3) if you are a high net worth individual where tax low harvesting matters, the product does not feel that compelling.
Frec is an option for customers looking for a new low cost direct indexing provider! All assets remain securely held with Apex + Frec has grown to over $300m in assets with continued rapid growth.
Can someone double-check my understanding of this?
Double is a portfolio management service that purchases shares that match the blend of a specific index for its customers. So instead of owning an index, you own the shares.
Double is winding down because they are not profitable. They are instructing their customers to either fully liquidate their holdings, or perform an ACATS transfer, which generally requires that any fractional holdings be liquidated first. However, the business model will necessarily require holding fractional shares because of the way indexes work.
So my question is, this is going to cause many of their customers to get dinged by short-term capital gains tax, right? That stinks.
Frec team here. We're in a very different position and confident we're here for the long haul. We manage over $300 million in assets, have grown 5x year-over-year, and are on a clear path to profitability without needing additional capital. The business is built on sustainable AUM-based fees with strong unit economics.
14 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 34.3 ms ] threadThat said, I personally don't understand keeping my assets that I hope to retire off of someday at a startup style company. Everyone's gotta start somewhere, but financial services like this are probably a hard sell for a lot of people.
The README.md says it's MIT licensed on the very last line (https://github.com/doublehq/oracle/blob/b69ef4c940217a2fbf52...).
However, LICENCE file (not LICENSE.md file, which doesn't exist, https://github.com/doublehq/oracle/blob/b69ef4c940217a2fbf52...) says it's GPL 3.0 license.
Which one is it?
Note for other folks in this situation: you should be able to find a referral link and get a $250 bonus for transferring over.
1) there are already competitors in this space that have been there for a decade or longer. Higher fees but not significantly so to counter the risk of doing business with a startup.
2) If you use their calculator is a bit disingenuous, starting balance of $1mm. Those clients exist but that’s the minority. If you bring that number down to a more typical average or median for someone with a 30 year horizon you see that the difference is not material compared to their default assumptions.
3) if you are a high net worth individual where tax low harvesting matters, the product does not feel that compelling.
Double is a portfolio management service that purchases shares that match the blend of a specific index for its customers. So instead of owning an index, you own the shares.
Double is winding down because they are not profitable. They are instructing their customers to either fully liquidate their holdings, or perform an ACATS transfer, which generally requires that any fractional holdings be liquidated first. However, the business model will necessarily require holding fractional shares because of the way indexes work.
So my question is, this is going to cause many of their customers to get dinged by short-term capital gains tax, right? That stinks.