# Wealthsimple 0 fee trading



## Shaun8030 (Jul 25, 2018)

Here it comes zero fee trading excited . I will be switching . Only thing is they don't support transfer of accounts out yet from other brokerages . 
https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-ca/trade


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Worth watching but account management can't be free. There will be preparation of tax slips, reporting of IIROC regulated items, etc. that requires human oversight. Revenue will have to come from somewhere to pay for those minimum services.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I guess they are following the RobinHood idea from the US. This kind of thing is generally marketed to millennials, for people who open small positions such as $200 in stock XXX, $100 in stock YYY, etc.

Wealthsimple is apparently a division of: https://www.shareowner.com/


----------



## Shaun8030 (Jul 25, 2018)

Who wants to pay 10 dollars or 7 dollars or 5 dollars per stock trade regardless of your account size . Unless you don't mind wasting money.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Shaun8030 said:


> Who wants to pay 10 dollars or 7 dollars or 5 dollars per stock trade regardless of your account size . Unless you don't mind wasting money.


Someone who wants a large and solvent brokerage, for one. Personally I am willing to pay trade fees to use a big bank brokerage for the added safety, stability and experienced staff (calling in & various services provided).

$10 a trade is a pretty insignificant cost when you're placing a couple trades a year and maintaining large positions.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Wealthsimple is apparently a division of: https://www.shareowner.com/


Wealthsimple is 77% owned by Power Financial through PWF, IGM, etc. Power Corp's way of saving their Power Financial group as IGM hits the skids with decreasing longevity. Wealthsimple bought ShareOwner in 2015.

Added: Venture Capitalists own the rest. Founder is Michael Katchen with an equity interest.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> Worth watching but account management can't be free. There will be preparation of tax slips, reporting of IIROC regulated items, etc. that requires human oversight. Revenue will have to come from somewhere to pay for those minimum services.



this robo is probably receiving kickback fees from the ETFs that they recommend & sell

similar to how zero-MER ETFs & low-fee ETFs collect fees ranging up to 5% of mark-to-market value for lending out the securities they are allegedly "holding" in their funds to shortselling hedge funds


----------



## Shaun8030 (Jul 25, 2018)

Your funds will be insured as per Wealth Simple so I don't see stability or solvency being a problem. If you are only making two trades an year then yes it won't impact you much. There are others who make more trades and the fees add up. It depends how you invest and trade. Also I never call my brokerage I do everything online so that service doesn't mean much.


----------



## crgf1k (Aug 8, 2015)

I just watched an interview on BNN and the Wealthsimple guy said they're going to charge a foreign exchange fee if you're making trades on another exchange such as the US. That could add up quick, but for trades in Canada it might be a good option.


----------



## Shaun8030 (Jul 25, 2018)

Won't support Norberts Gambit? If that's the only charge then for me its not bad.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Questrade is quite cheap too but you read a lot of not only negatives reviews, but nightmare experiences. I will wait for the reviews. I think they are not being transparent about how they make their money. It has to be more then foreign exchange transactions. They will probably start off free, lure in the customers then charge a fee.

I also agree the big banks have more money to put in security.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Clearly it is a wait and see for most of us, both in execution and platform. Early adopters can keep us up to date. Will not make a difference to me since I only do 3-5 trades per year, and thus won't be moving under any circumstances.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Shaun8030 said:


> Your funds will be insured as per Wealth Simple




^^ this is pretty much meaningless, no?

every financial institution is supposed to back its products. Every financial institution will say that it backs its products.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Do they offer GICs?

Do they allow limit orders? If not, we already know where they are collecting their fees.

How well are they routing their orders? Do limit orders get as good fills as on say TD or RBC? The big bank brokerages, and Interactive Brokers, get excellent fills by routing your orders to multiple exchanges, not just TSX but also Alpha, NASDAQ CX2, TriAct.

Well established brokerages have sophisticated order routing and do well at filling both large and small odd lot orders. These systems require constant refinement. Is WealthSimple on par with these? If you're not going to have your orders routed and filled well, then this also represents additional hidden costs. For example if they only route to TSX, then already you're at a big disadvantage versus big brokerages.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

James, no one knows details yet. All of that is yet to come.... Stay tuned.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Those posters at redflag deals are lapping it up. They've all signed up for the waitlist so we'll hear from them. They say it will only be available in unregistered accounts to start and you can only trade 1000 per transaction.


----------



## fireseeker (Jul 24, 2017)

Shaun8030 said:


> Won't support Norberts Gambit? If that's the only charge then for me its not bad.


A 2.5% currency exchange fee on a $10,000 trade is $250. That sounds expensive to me ...


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

latebuyer said:


> Questrade is quite cheap too but you read a lot of not only negatives reviews, but nightmare experiences.



never been a questrade client but my understanding is that "nightmare experiences" are a thing of the long-ago past. In our times we're not hearing about nightmares.






> I think they are not being transparent about how they make their money.



one hypothesis goes that questrade functions as a wholesale shorting house, ie it lends out stock from clients' accounts for shorting purposes to other brokers for a fee. Everyone who shorts knows that one's own broker may be able to borrow shortable stock from another broker if their own loan post doesn't happen to have a sufficient inventory. In fact there seems to be a very efficient network offering an inventory of shortable stocks that operates privately among brokers, so they can rapidly borrow from each other.

the questrade short wholesaler hypothesis arises because questrade offers only margin accounts. Other than registered accounts, there are no cash accounts at questrade. Once margin is impaired, anything can be borrowed out of a client's account, up to the extent of the margin impairment.

no one will ever know exactly how the back side of questrade operates because the business is privately owned, therefore is not required to disclose anything. No one, for example, can ever know the true capitalization of the firm. No one can know who their bankers are.

here in cmf forum, one doesn't see too many hi-value members who are questrade clients.


.


----------



## kelaa (Apr 5, 2016)

We opened an account for their ETF robo-advisory service at the beginning of the year. Essentially anyone can get 10,000 "managed" for one year without additional fees. I'm waiting until next year to see how the tax documents get processed. If they do a good job with that, I wouldn't mind being more active with deposits. We are also Power Corp shareholders. Wealthsimple's present value is in the order of $100 million if you go by the metric of say 1/20th AUM.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

charging an FX fee on CAD/USD transactions & not offering the opportunity to gambit the currencies are reasons enough to avoid wealthsimple.

the fact that they won't reimburse a client for the $150 transfer fee of an investment account from another broker is another nail in coffin. Not a defining nail, just a small tack, but still these negative tacks do add up.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I don't know why we're talking about limit orders, gambitting, and transfer fees...Wealth Simple just looks like a competitor for the Tangerine mutual funds. None of their customers will care about those things.

You just choose from the limited selection of different low cost funds and it's done. They even have millennial bait choices for the funds selected like "social responsibility" and "halal" funds.

Their groan-inducing TV commercials are enough to keep me away. Clearly CMFers who ask pointed questions about the financial facts are not their target audience...


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

peterk said:


> ...
> 
> Their groan-inducing TV commercials are enough to keep me away. *Clearly CMFers who ask pointed questions about the financial facts are not their target audience*...


... then I wonder who their potential customers will be? From reddit? LOL.

And trading by app only eh. So what happens if one's app crashed that moment/day? Basic question.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

fireseeker said:


> A 2.5% currency exchange fee on a $10,000 trade is $250. That sounds expensive to me ...


and that assumes that they will ONLY charge 2.5% when TD is already charging 3.5%!


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

peterk said:


> I don't know why we're talking about limit orders, gambitting, and transfer fees ... Wealth Simple just looks like a competitor for the Tangerine mutual funds. None of their customers will care about those things ...


These questions are part of evaluating whether the offering fits the investor, n'est pas?
Or are you saying you selected your bank account, brokerage account, mortgage, HeLoc, loan or any combo thereof by figuring out the target audience without bothering with what you wanted/needed?


FWIW, I suspect you are right that it won't appeal to many/any CMFers plus is not likely to be enhanced enough to become interesting.


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

It will take time to see what they truly offer. I am guessing Power Corp has seen the writing on the wall and really wants to dramatically shift their business from the bloodsucking (and eventually failing) IGM model to the new fintech model and profitability might take a back seat to capturing business, albeit there are other venture capital owners holding about 23% of the WealthSimple ownership and they need to put food on the table.

IOW, I would not count them out. WealthSimple bought ShareOwner 3? years ago and seem to be piecing together an investing business that may be able to offer something for everyone, i.e. ShareOwner, robo-advisor, low cost discount broker. Can they integrate that all together in a cohesive way? Or will it be a confusing array of competing solutions? We won't know for a few years.

I disagree a bit with Peterk's comments. The robo-advisory business with pre-packaged portfolios based on ETFs (as compared to Tangerine with mutual funds) is apparently doing very well with a range of investors. You might even argue there are variations of this trend with Blackrock's Core ETFs, Vanguards Balanced ETFs, etc, etc. Easier and understandable solutions for a wide range of investors. Fascinating (and perhaps confusing) times.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

kcowan said:


> and that assumes that they will ONLY charge 2.5% when TD is already charging 3.5%!




yikes. 3.5% must be for a round trip in the currencies though? unless 3.50% is the going rate for standard credit card FX at the big green

consumers should be on the high alert for FX fees everywhere. Regulations requiring institutions to disclose these are still spotty, although they are a whole lot better than they were 10-15 years ago.

disclosure only improved after multitudes of customers complained. So complain away; except don't just complain on anonymous chat boards. It's necessary to complain to the regulatory bodies of the financial institutions themselves.

to do this, one needs concrete examples of egregious or hyper-predatory conduct by a financial institution. One needs to build a dossier complete with screen shots & visual illustrations of the alleged wrongdoing. One must then stick-handle that written dossier as it percolates ever high through the complaint layers of the original institution, before one can then pivot to the regulatory authorities.

it's an exhausting process. Allow years. Muster up the patience of a saint & the skills of a team of solicitors. 


.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

Good article by Dan Bortolotti (Canadian Couch potato)

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/inv...n-the-rise-but-it-wont-make-you-a-successful/

I posted to redflagdeals so bandwagon jumpers could read.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> yikes. 3.5% must be for a round trip in the currencies though? unless 3.50% is the going rate for standard credit card FX at the big green


It's the FX fee if you withdraw or pay using your debit card in a foreign currency (see page 6 of this document): 
http://www.tdcanadatrust.com/document/PDF/accounts/513796-20171030.pdf

I don't know what they charge nowadays for broker or credit card FX.


----------



## larry81 (Nov 22, 2010)

latebuyer said:


> Good article by Dan Bortolotti (Canadian Couch potato)
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/inv...n-the-rise-but-it-wont-make-you-a-successful/
> 
> I posted to redflagdeals so bandwagon jumpers could read.


Very good article, thanks for posting.

What a great time for DYI investors


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Robinhood and other free brokers sell their order flow to high speed traders so they can front run the orders, sniping a small profit on each deal. But these small profits add up, enough so they are willing to pay millions every month for the information.

Remember, if the product is free, you are the product.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

latebuyer said:


> Good article by Dan Bortolotti (Canadian Couch potato)
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/inv...n-the-rise-but-it-wont-make-you-a-successful/
> 
> I posted to redflagdeals so bandwagon jumpers could read.




it's surprising that dan Bortolotti would bite the very hand that feeds him

somewhat timidly, he writes in the Globe ^^ how ETFs earn extra income by lending out their securities to hedge funds for shorting purposes. These kinds of undocumented revenues are helping ETF vendors to lower costs below zero, in some cases, bortolotti says.

alas bortolotti is only touching the tip of the iceberg. One fund family brazenly says - in a background paper prepared for advisors only - that the regular 2% fee it could earn by lending securities for shorting purposes is not sufficient for its income needs or even attractive. Instead, this fund family says it specializes in lending out exotic stocks to hedge funds. Fees for these exotic loans are 5%, an income stream that the fund family finds attractive indeed.

one can see the problem here. Some of those exotic securities are being loaned out from so-called conservative, large cap, dividend-paying, balanced ETFs. The kinds of blue chip ETFs that retirees like to buy and hold.

how does a conservative-large-cap-dividend-paying ETF end up holding exotic securities so it can lend these out to hedge funds in return for a lucrative 5% fee?

through a technique that is described in every prospectus. It's called "representational sampling." There are other semantics, but they all mean the same thing. They mean that a specific fund does not have to hold the securities it publicly lists as its official holdings. Instead, the ETF can hold representational securities that will - it thinks - give the same "return" as the publicly-listed securities. The ETF is free to hold securities that its investors will never hear of. Securities that are never reported. Securities that are loaned out to hedge funds for 5% fees.

cmffers in general do not like to hear this point of view. But it is surfacing, slowly but surely. 

please do read your prospectuses, faithful ETF disciples. There you will frequently find language revealing that your "scientific" "guaranteed fail-proof" exchange-traded fund is holding futures, options, swap contracts, representational samples and other derivatives.

surely it should strike you as strange that these complex derivative products are never mentioned as holdings in the audited financial statements? surely it should strike you as odd that canadian regulations do not require that fund securities which are out on loan to hedge funds be identified, although US regulations do require such identification?

something is wrong with the regulatory authorities here in canada, that they do not enforce full disclosure. But then - as everyone knows - the ETF industry itself *is* the regulator. Finance in canada is still a self-regulated industry and it is the financial institutions themselves who own and operate the IIROCs and the fund regulatory associations.

the US has a national public security commission; but here in canada we do not have such an authority. We only have mostly-weak provincial securities commissons, of which ontario is the strongest; however the OSC cannot be expected to carry the load for the whole of canada.


.


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

​Thanks for your informative write-up humble.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I agree with you humble_pie that securities lending is a problem. Eventually this could blow up and hurt a lot of people who have entrusted their assets to ETFs and mutual funds.

It's a reason I prefer XIU. Sure, it's less diversified, slightly higher MER, and too heavy in financials. But the securities it holds are so boring and liquid that there isn't much securities lending going on. With just 60 stocks it also (as far as I know) actually holds all of them. I really think XIU is one of the safest ETFs in Canada.

This isn't the situation with those Vanguard ETFs that claim to hold 1,000 or 5,000 stocks... and once you get into global stock ETFs that claim to hold thousands of stocks across emerging markets etc for a couple basis points fee, it's just really not true. It can't be.

Also, don't blame ETFs here. Mutual funds do all the same shenanigans.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Spudd said:


> I don't know what they charge nowadays for broker or credit card FX.


It is the same for CC. And broker never gets a chance (thanks Norbert).


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

latebuyer said:


> Good article by Dan Bortolotti (Canadian Couch potato)
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/inv...n-the-rise-but-it-wont-make-you-a-successful/
> 
> I posted to redflagdeals so bandwagon jumpers could read.


This is a great article, thanks. I circulated it at my office too.

I agree with Dan. Index ETF fees are already so low, that any further decline isn't going to make a transformative difference. The elimination of trade fees might be more convenient for small size trades, but no trade fees also encourages trading in & out which is quite harmful. He also raises an excellent point about alternative benchmarks and proprietary indexes. There is a lot of room for funny business when the ETF provider defines their own index -- which is a criticism I've had of VBAL, VGRO, etc. It removes accountability and independence.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

This paper provides more insight into the Vanguard asset allocation ETFs https://www.vanguardcanada.ca/documents/vanguard-asset-allocations-etfs-white-paper.pdf


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

james4beach said:


> I prefer XIU. Sure, it's less diversified, slightly higher MER, and too heavy in financials. But the securities it holds are so boring and liquid that there isn't much securities lending going on. With just 60 stocks it also (as far as I know) actually holds all of them. I really think XIU is one of the safest ETFs in Canada.



wondering what makes you think that XIU does not lend out any securities though

representational sampling allows XIU to salt its holdings with exotic stocks that can be loaned out for 105% collateral. The reality is that no one other than top level management at blackRock has any idea what XIU is really holding.

here is an interesting paper from vanguard that describes its well-honed practice of generating extra revenues for its ETFs by lending out securities to shortsellers.

the paper shows how extraordinarily sophisticated vanguard is with this technique. It also alludes to the salting of exotic securities - which fetch higher lending fees of 5% & even higher - as "representational samples" into funds whose official profiles do not include such riskier holdings.

it can be assumed that all other ETF families are deploying the same sampling/lending strategies, in order to earn extra income. In particular i would assume that blackRock, purveyors of XIU, are as nimble with representational lending as is vanguard.

therefore i for one believe that the fact XIU is alleged to own 60 top canadian companies that are not interesting for shorting purposes, actually does anything to prove that XIU cannot be lending to shorts. As the vanguard paper sets forth, XIU could very well be holding a small inventory of riskier stocks among its unnamed "samples," which it does lend to shorting borrowers in return for high fees.



> The collateral amount. In the United States, borrowers generally pledge cash collateral equal to 102% of the value of domestic securities and 105% of the value of non-U.S. shares.
> 
> The lender can request that the borrower pledge more or less collateral, based on the kind of collateral posted. Outside the United States, borrowers typically pledge non-cash collateral.
> 
> Lenders may demand that the value of non-cash collateral be greater than 105% of the security’s value to account for any volatility in the collateral.



https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/ISGSL.pdf


.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

For me, the most concerning issue in Canada would be the quality of non-cash collateral*, especially in a 2008 type financial crisis when capital asset values plummet and liquidity dries up. Are you aware of any regulatory 'white paper' type discussion on securities lending in Canada, and/or discussion in publications like Investment Executive or Advisor Edge (Advisor.ca)?

* Vanguard says they require gov't securities in Canada.

Added for James: From the MRFP, XIU made $709,334 from counterparties in securities lending income in 2017, spread across about 460-540 million units


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Good point about the quality of collateral.

For XIU, my comments are based on what I see in the financial statements. There is far more detailed information buried in the notes at the end of the audited statements. On page 302 of the financial statements you'll find that at Dec 31, 2017 the value of securities loaned out was

XIU: 377,675,631 = 3% of net assets
XIC: 292,464,972 = 7% of net assets
XSP: 242,448,228 = 22% of net assets

Having watched XIU over the years, I have consistently seen that its level of securities lending (currently 3% of assets) is one of the lowest among all major ETFs. Most will loan out more like 10% and sometimes even as high as 40%. iShares does indeed publish the amount of securities loaned out. It's tough to find the numbers but I've learned over the years where to find them.

The reasons I still think XIU is the best Canadian ETF is that it's one of the oldest and best established, shows a very healthy 7.1% CAGR since inception 19 years ago *despite* starting in '99 near the peak, has operated smoothly through two major market crashes, great volume/liquidity, and has minimal securities lending. For me the slightly higher MER is worth paying.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Good point about the quality of collateral.
> 
> For XIU, my comments are based on what I see in the financial statements. There is far more detailed information buried in the notes at the end of the audited statements. On page 302 of the financial statements you'll find that at Dec 31, 2017 the value of securities loaned out was
> 
> ...



XIU is mostly XIU options, imho. One can perpetually see billion-dollar option positions in XIU - both puts & calls - submerged about 2-4 months forward on the montreal exchange. They look like gigantic crocodiles dozing underwater. Day by day they slowly slither themselves forward in time. Sometimes more calls, sometimes more puts, sometimes more increments OTM, sometimes less. Somebody is skilfully prodding those crocs forward along fairly broad channels.

those crocodiles are either XIU itself or else its "authorized participants" counterparties. Authorized participants are the institutions that continually waltz in with their baskets of shares to redeem or purchase. Every fund has em. They are what keep the market price fairly close to NAV.

is anyone left who is still naiive enough to believe that an ETF & its gang of authorized participants are actually exchanging real shares every day?  nae nae, tis their derivative positions they keep pecking into place. Much less costly because of leverage.

XIU options are major volume leaders on the montreal exchange. Thinggabboudditt. Who except a big institution w serious commitment to XIU would be willing to maintain billions of $$ in XIU options, day after day, month after month, year after year, decade after decade?

other reasons i think options are the core of XIU are a) their higher MER compared to XIC; b) the huge popularity of XIU over its little cousin XIC; & c) those odd-ball special capital gains distributions.

options are much safer than synthetic derivatives such as futures & swaps. Options are guaranteed by the exchange where they trade. Nothing less than the full montreal exchange stands behind every XIU contract. The same is not true of swap contract derivatives which depend upon their sole counterparty or counterparties, which is XIC's profile. 

synthetic portfolios based on options are more expensive to maintain than synthetic portfolios based on futures and/or swaps. XIU based on options is safer, with higher management fees and far higher volume, than XIC based on counterparty instruments with lower fees and conspicuously lower volume. Professional advisors know that XIU is safer, it's why they recommend clients into XIU instead of XIC.

those mysterious special capital gains distributions in XIU, the ones that never pay cash & never appear as new units? such special distributions appear some years but not other years? those are end-of-year adjustments between the option performance & the performance of the index itself.

i'll post some screenshots showing the slumbering crocodiles. They're always there. Have been since XIU debuted in 1999. I've held XIU since 2001. By now i know the crocodiles by their pet names.


.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> * Vanguard says they require gov't securities in Canada.
> 
> Added for James: From the MRFP, XIU made $709,334 from counterparties in securities lending income in 2017, spread across about 460-540 million units




under-reported securities lending is only the tip of the iceberg. One has to ask why canada does not have the same regulations as the US, which requires that ETF vendors identify, security by security, each and every item in inventory that has been loaned out.

the real scandal is general lack of disclosure due to inadequate regulation, thus allowing ETF investors to be sold the story that their alphabet soups are holding each and every stock named in the sales literature in outright ownership ... indeed, safe & secure in professional 3rd party custodial hands! moreover such services are being rendered for free, since MERs have to be kept at zero to .15% range!

ETFs employ a variety of cost-cutting strategies, mostly involving derivatives plus representational sampling plus securities lending.

it is miraculous how the massive ETF sales industry - many of whose principals came over from the mutual fund industry some 15 or 20 years ago when they saw the too-high-fee writing on the wall - has succeeded in selling the Kool Aid that ETFs own all of the stocks they list in their sales literature, plain and simple. Furthermore, ETFs continuously buy and sell millions of their stocks with their authorized participants, every day, all day, in order to balance the ETF to its index, goes the Kool Aid.

former cmffer haroldCrump & this biscuit scribe were the first to write about lack of regulated disclosure & too-loose ETF marketing engines about 3 years ago. At the time Harold e-mailed to me that ETFs had evolved far away from what founder John Bogle had first envisioned.

in fact Bogle himself has recently begun to speak out against the more exotic new ETFs. Ditto very recently dan Bortoletti, a key ETF promoter in canada.

tiny cracks in the ETF foundation are now visible. It's all happening sooner than i would have thought. HaroldCrump's view was that it would require the total collapse of a giant money-centre bank dealing in ETF index derivatives before the ETF buying public would begin to see that the industry reposes upon shakier foundations than its promoters would care to reveal.

Harold thought that the probability of an ETF index provider/money centre bank collapse was low & therefore the industry was likely to sail on without much investigation. I agreed with his view. What i object to is the lack of regulation that would force disclosure of all the representational/synthetic positions.

when we deposit $1000 into our neighbourhood bank branch account, we don't expect the branch to place 1000 physical loonies in a vault that it keeps underground. We expect our bank's treasury floor to instantly fragmentize our deposit and lend it out all over the world, via operations that are more regulated and less opaque than ETF disclosure at the present time. On the whole, we tend to be content with our bank's disclosure.

what i would like to see is the same kind of regulation and the same level of disclosure enforced in the ETF industry. IMHO investors should not be seduced into believing that their ETF is continuously buying & selling, all day long, every day, millions of actual shares of its alleged holdings, in order to balance itself with its index.

.


----------



## moses (Dec 12, 2020)

They have come a long way with the wealth simple trade service. Now they are offering web based trading, stop losses, etc.

There are quite a few things that would make the service much better (USD account, quicker funding, margin trading & options).

They have also recently opened up their cash app (invite only). I got an invite and it's very smooth and simple to use. This could become a real competitor to Cash App and Venmo for Canada (and potentially expanding).

If anyone wants more information or wants to check it out, let me know.


----------

