
How I'm fixing the 401(k) - ible
https://blog.guideline.com/how-im-fixing-your-401-k-5512a790b4fd
======
ryporter
Guideline isn't actually "fixing" your 401(k). They are primarily just
competing on price. Employers can already get a decent 401(k) from Vanguard,
which obviously offers access to their low-cost funds. Guideline doesn't
appear to be offering anything fundamentally new (in contrast to, for example,
robo-advisors). If I were setting up a 401(k) plan for a company, I'd probably
just go with Vanguard, with full confidence that my provider will not undergo
any "growing pains" or even cease to exist in 5 years.

~~~
busque
Hi, I'm the CEO of Guideline. I think you might have fallen into the same trap
I did a few years ago. All 401(k) plans are not created equally, and it's not
just about the fund menu etc. Vanguard for instance, is not a fiduciary. They
will not help you keep your plan in compliance, they will not educate your
employees. They don't even do their own record keeping. You will need to pay
for those services separately. We are making great 401(k) plans attainable for
the small business while focussing on the long term success of your employees.

~~~
JediPig
I am waiting on the hammer to fall on 401k. Here is the current situation.

401k is a horrible idea, and its a good way to funnel money from savers. After
2000 & 2008, do you really want to trust the same people who needed bailed
out? Yet, 401k is using those institutions to do business with.

401k is a wolf in sheeps clothing. The next down turn, who knows, governments
have been known to seize retirement funds. What happens if US Congress decides
to do that to save the nation? Look whats happening in the world, it has
already happened in the last year in other nations.

My advice, stay out of 401k, put your money where it has intrinsic value, and
not a number on a computer screen.

~~~
harryh
Essentially all assets, except perhaps gold^H^H^H^H commodities in your
physical posession, are numbers on a computer screen. Even land ownership is
controlled by records kept by local governments.

~~~
blacksmith_tb
This is clearly true, but the scenarios in which it becomes a problem vary. In
an isolated case of data loss/corruption that leaves the title to your home up
in the air, there would be other sources of data to appeal to (records at
lenders who had paper on the property, etc.) In more apocalyptic scenarios,
even your on-hand physical assets won't be good for much (you can't eat gold).

~~~
harryh
Sure, but the person I was talking to wasn't talking about data loss. He was
talking about asset seizure by the state. If they're going to seize my 401k
they're just as likely to size my rental property.

And ya, in apocalyptic scenarios the value of assets could swing wildly. I've
seen Mad Max though. I'm not buying gold, I'm stockpiling guzzoline.

------
boulos
They don't state which Vanguard funds you'll have access to (though they
explicitly say they just use passive ones), but apparently there is an option
to have the employee do a custom allocation within their menu of funds. Given
the .10% expected fee for the underlying mutual funds I'm guessing they're
assuming investor class (like VTIAX), which is pretty fair!

A one-time, $500 setup fee, and $8/month per employee is pretty great. The
.03% custodial fee to the employee isn't bad either.

Again the big hurdle for a small startup / business is even being able to
offer these (contacting Fidelity and Vanguard is sadly awful as a small person
without company history or at least 20 employees). Glad to see competition in
this space!

~~~
busque
Thanks for the support. I'll get you a full list and have someone followup.
Here is a quick screenshot of my customer portfolio so you can see some of the
funds quickly.
[https://cloudup.com/c_kk6Zi5jC1](https://cloudup.com/c_kk6Zi5jC1)

~~~
Someone1234
It would be awesome if you just listed which funds you support somewhere on
your site. I imagine this is a question that will come up again and again.

~~~
busque
Actually, fund menu selection does not come up as much as you think... That
being said, we are building the page right now and will post it soon!

------
jqueryin
To the guideline team: I noticed you don't have an SSL cert setup on your root
domain: [https://guideline.com](https://guideline.com).

You should probably set this up and then you can have it redirect to your www
subdomain.

I hit this page by accident when trying manually dropping your blog subdomain
to visit the site.

~~~
jarito
The cert on guideline.io is also expired. Not great.

~~~
busque
This is not used anymore. Will update DNS, thanks.

------
logicalmind
Tangential question, but is anyone else worried that the rules of 401(k)'s can
be changed at a later time. History has shown that retirement funds are highly
valuable sources of money that companies and governments eventually eat away
at. Pensions funds were eventually raided by companies. And social security
has been used for alternate means by the government. Is there anything that
prevents the government from changing the rules of 401(k) plans at a later
time that allow them to be misappropriated as well?

~~~
cujo
I am not a financial professional so hopefully someone else will chime in,
but...

My understanding is that your 401k can't be pilfered directly by the
government since they don't hold it. This is different from pensions where the
company actually held the pension money and changing the terms led them to
actually take it.

The government CAN get at your 401k money using the same technique you are
calculating against with respect to ROTH accounts. That is, since it is tax
deferred, you're essentially betting that you'll be in a lower or at least
equivalent tax bracket compared to current when it comes time to pull that
money out.

It's conceivable that they just up the tax rates enough that when it comes
time to pull your money, the government can get at as much of your funds as it
likes based on taxes alone.

I'm sure there are other risks involved, but that seems like the most obvious.

~~~
logicalmind
Since the 401(k) laws are federal laws within the IRS, couldn't that law be
changed at any time by the federal government? Based on history, it seems
naive to think that trillions of dollars sitting in retirement accounts would
not be eventually re-purposed.

~~~
ceejayoz
They have the theoretical power, but how do you think "we're taking your
retirement accounts" is going to play politically?

It was possible with pensions because they often weren't privately held
accounts, and people didn't have individual balances they could consult.

~~~
logicalmind
How is that any different from social security though? Social security taxes
are being taken out of every american's paycheck as we speak. Yet, anyone
under the age of 40 or so has no illusions that social security will be
solvent by their retirement age.

~~~
ceejayoz
It's possible because you don't have a Social Security _balance_. There's no
statement that says "you personally have $250k in your account" like a 401(k)
or IRA does. So, no one notices when Congress goes fishing in it.

Frankly, I (34) do think it'll be solvent by my retirement. It'll still have
funds to pay about 3/4 of current benefits without changes to the system. As
it gets closer, political change will likely get easier as Congress doesn't
want lose their cushy jobs en masse.

~~~
snuxoll
I actually get a letter from the government every year showing how much money
I have put into the social security trust, and how much I can expect when I
retire if I keep putting in the same amount as I did last year.

You can view it online anytime here, actually:
[https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/](https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/)

Ultimately since it's a huge trust fund of course there's no "You have X money
in the bank", but it does say I should expect "X money per month" when I
retire. It'd be nice if it showed details of the trust fund overall.

~~~
ceejayoz
I get those too. Note that nowhere does it claim the amount you paid in is
your _balance_. Your benefits won't go up if you retire at 100 years old. Your
benefits won't run out if you live to 500. It's not like a 401(k) or IRA,
where you have $x dollars in it that's _your_ money and have to budget your
withdrawals.

They won't update the "amount you will get" to reflect Congress dipping into
the fund. The statements operate on the "if everything continues to go well"
basis, and so what Congress does isn't reflected on them. No one gets their
next statement and asks "hey, where'd my money go?"

That's why it's politically safe to raid, at least in the short term.

~~~
loeg
> They won't update the "amount you will get" to reflect Congress dipping into
> the fund. The statements operate on the "if everything continues to go well"
> basis, and so what Congress does isn't reflected on them.

Right.

They do say, "Your estimated benefits are based on current law. The law
governing benefit amounts may change. Congress has made changes to the law in
the past and can do so at any time." At least.

------
brianwawok
I think this is huge. Retirement is totally full of people reaching in for
nothing.

It started with "we will manage your money with secret investments, for 2% fee
and 20% if we beat a benchmark".

With enough math and science, people moved into index funds. Except index
funds through a 401k can easily be 1%+ extra fees. This is an awesome way to
avoid that.

The only irony, is that the founder made taskrabbit, which is part of the gig
aka no retirement for you economy. Only other people who can afford task
rabbit have a 401k, not the actual doers.

~~~
lsiebert
I am actually becoming a bigger fan of etfs. Generally lower fees, can set a
limit instead of buying/selling at end of day blind, and you actually get the
dividends from the stocks for a dividend etf.

I am not at all clear why you wouldn't do this if you are just tracking an
index.

~~~
brianwawok
If you are playing for the long haul, limit orders do not matter. Place a buy
once per month for 1/12th of your commitment, and forget about it.

For fees sure - see what fees are lowest for you (ETF vs Mutual fund). Last
time I did the math for me, mutual funds ended up giving me more money in my
pocket at the end of 10 years, because of no trading fees. I think if you
reach a certain point in 1 purchase (100k??) ETF wins. Maybe the optimal
strategy is to use a mutal fund, then when that fund hits 100k - sell it all
off and put in an ETF for a lower yearly fee. Have not done the math when the
exact right place to do this is, would be curious. But I know if you are doing
small 400-2000 buys per month, ETF fees add up as a % of the price.

For other references on ETF downsides see
[http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mutualfund/07/etf_downs...](http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mutualfund/07/etf_downside.asp)

~~~
loeg
You should not be paying ETF trading fees. And the bid-ask spread is quite
small for most popular ones.

~~~
brianwawok
Where are you getting ETFs with no fee and no rate increase? And how would
company offering said investment pay the staff?

~~~
loeg
Both Fidelity and Vanguard brokerages offer a wide selection of ETFs with no
trading fees.

What do you mean by rate increases?

Vanguard brokerage is funded by its ETF expense ratios; Fidelity by kickbacks
from ETF ER as well as subsidized by other products they sell.

But I'm also confused why you suggest doing 400-2000 buys per month. That
seems very high to me for a long-term retirement portfolio.

~~~
lsiebert
Schwab has a bunch as well, not just schwab based ones.

------
wj
Congratulations on launching! I'm particularly impressed you are doing the
recordkeeping in addition to advisory. I look forward to crossing paths with
you someday.

I'm also starting a company in the 401(k) space though focusing completely on
the educational aspect. While making it easier for both the employer and
employee is something to strive for I believe education is a component that
many overlook and is of particular importance for the less highly compensated
employees who don't contribute enough to their 401(k). "Financial wellness" is
the industry buzzword but for me that means getting people financially
prepared for all of the big life events between the day they start work and
the day they retire. A participant with a budget, emergency fund, and a plan
for their financial goals is going to be less stressed and more able to focus
on the long-term goal of retirement.

------
JustInvest
It actually looks like Guideline is a better deal for having Vanguard funds in
your 401(k) than even having Vanguard itself manage it. I can't find
Vanguard's administration fees on their site (not a good sign), but they also
got sued for overcharging in their 401(k) plan that they had setup with
Anthem:

"Plaintiffs also allege excessive fees paid to Vanguard for record-keeping
services. Over the period 2010-13, the plan paid approximately $80-$94 per
participant for record keeping, both through hard-dollar and revenue-sharing
fees; in September 2013, the expense was lowered to a flat annual $42 fee per
participant. However, the “outside limit” of a reasonable fee for the plan
would have been $30, according to the complaint."

[http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160105/FREE/16010997...](http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160105/FREE/160109974/new-401-k-suit-
targets-vanguard-fund-fees)

~~~
JustInvest
Guideline is charging $8 per participant -- a much better deal than the
numbers quoted above.

~~~
thedufer
8/month is not better than 42/year. If these numbers are right, vanguard looks
cheaper.

~~~
irishcoffee
YTD Vanguard has charged me 27 dollars in fees. So like 5-6 bucks a month.
Sample size n=1 yes, vanguard is cheaper.

------
rdegges
I'll be the first to admit that I don't know too much about investment, but
isn't the typical advice to pretty much ONLY put your money into the Vanguard
Target funds based on your year of retirement?

This is some relatively widespread retirement knowledge, and is frequently
referenced by the likes of r/personalfinance, r/investing, etc.

How does Guideline somehow out perform Vanguard who's been the king of this
forever? Serious question.

~~~
nordsieck
They're talking about 401(k), not IRA, which means it has to be managed by a
custodian on top of what ever fees a fund charges.

Guideline is trying to be the Vanguard of 401(k) custodians.

The second hand info I have from a startup (that I worked at) negotiating with
a 401(k) provider leads me to believe that are basically 2 common 401(k)
setups in the industry.

In the least bad case, the company pays a bunch of money to the custodian in
exchange for the custodian giving the employees access to good funds (vanguard
institutional shares).

In the more bad case, the company pays the custodian nothing, and the
employees only get access to funds that kick money back to the custodian. As
you might be able to guess, these funds typically have quite high fees.

~~~
lewisl9029
I'm wondering, is there such a thing as a self-directed 401K where you can
control exactly your 401K money goes? If so, would employer matching work for
these self-directed accounts as well?

~~~
astrange
There are some, but you wouldn't be able to buy shares in the better classes
of mutual funds, like Vanguard InstlPlus. Those rely on the whole company
buying the same shares to meet the minimum investment requirements.

~~~
Retric
My last company had a 50$ per year option that let you buy and sell any stock
or few thousand mutual funds. Funds where low cost so it did not seem worth
it, but YMMV.

------
koolba
Wow those are some razor thin margins! If you can pull this off it's going to
be both huge (from an AUM perspective) and a big win for the 1,000s of
companies that want to setup 401(k) plans but are either scared off by the
complexity or fee structure.

I do wonder if profitability can be sustained. With an average account size of
$50K, you're looking at $50K x .03% + 9 x 12 = $123 per year of revenue per
participant. I'm sure there's a scale factor to dilute the common expenses on
your end, but a few hours of customer service (per participant) will eat
through all of that.

Either way, best of luck, this looks awesome!

~~~
ececconi
I've had a 401k for 6 years and I've never once used customer service.

Also the older you are and the more you've worked the higher your account
balance becomes. So once you have people with balances with $1M+ (which if
you're actually saving for retirement you'll need), they'll be drawing much
more per person.

~~~
loeg
I call my 401(k) biweekly to perform in-plan Roth conversions, but would be
very happy to self-direct it online instead.

~~~
SamBam
Can you elaborate on why you do that? Is it that you assume taxes will only go
up, so you want all your retirement to be post-tax?

~~~
loeg
I am converting after-tax, not pre-tax contributions. For more information on
why that would be desirable, this is an easy read:
[http://www.madfientist.com/after-tax-
contributions/](http://www.madfientist.com/after-tax-contributions/)

------
jogjayr
Tangential question: why are 401ks employer-managed at all? Why can't they
work like IRAs? That is, I create a Vanguard account, put money in it, take a
deduction at the end of the year? If there's an employer match, give your
company the account number to do a direct deposit.

Or better yet, combine IRAs and 401ks and just let everyone deduct up to $20k
(or something else that's appropriate) to put into a retirement account you
can't access till you're 59.5?

~~~
wj
A short answer is that they are replacing employer pension plans so that is
how the tax code was constructed.

What you first propose would create a lot more administrative overhead for the
employer and payroll company. However I could see that as a genuine business
opportunity in the future, or at least a feature for a company list Gusto to
implement.

~~~
jogjayr
Thanks for the historical context. I guess it kind of made sense to structure
it that way at the time.

> What you first propose would create a lot more administrative overhead for
> the employer and payroll company.

Could you please explain how? I understand it will involve changes to existing
processes, calculating withholding etc. But if the company is saved the
trouble of finding a plan, administering it (or paying someone to) I would
have thought it would be less work overall?

~~~
wj
Right now your employer makes a deduction from each paycheck and then one ACH
payment (across all employees) to the custodian which the recordkeeper then
invests at the participant's direction.

You way involves the employer making a deduction from each paycheck and then
making an ACH payment for each employee to the institution of the employee's
choosing. For a large company that is thousands of additional transfers. The
way a company like Gusto could maybe do this is to store an employee's IRA
account information like they do their bank information for direct deposit.

Also, FYI, when buying mutual funds through your 401(k) you aren't charged any
fees for trading. Through my IRAs at least I get charged a commission for
every purchase. With payroll deductions those would add up.

~~~
somethingsimple
> You way involves the employer making a deduction from each paycheck and then
> making an ACH payment for each employee to the institution of the employee's
> choosing

How is that different from the ACH transfer done into each employee's bank
account when paying their salaries?

~~~
wj
Per my comment: "The way a company like Gusto could maybe do this is to store
an employee's IRA account information like they do their bank information for
direct deposit."

------
scandox
I'd love to come up with a genuinely transformative retirement savings system
for the European market too. I built pensions systems in Ireland and the UK
for years and my assessment was that the system was completely crazy from a
contributors point of view - at least since DC (defined contribution) became
the main paradigm.

Previously when DB (defined benefit) was a thing it was crazy from a company's
point of view.

And always the extraordinary fees concealed in labyrinthine complexity and
regulation.

~~~
donalhunt
please do! Europe has failed to deliver on a single market for this type of
stuff. :(

------
dmmalam
OctaveWealth [1] YCS12 is also a full stack flat fee 401k. We provide a very
flexible investment menu, with our own Octave Target Risk ETF Portfolios, in
addition to Vanguard Mutuals, and fully custom. The Octave portfolios are
built inhouse using best of breed Exchange Traded Funds from multiple
providers.

[1] [http://octavewealth.com](http://octavewealth.com)

~~~
wj
I don't know how I missed you having been in the 401(k) industry for so long
as well as following the YC graduating classes. I'd love to talk to you for a
few minutes sometime.

------
voiper1
Excellent! Even betterment, the only robo-investor I see with a 401(k)
offering seems to charge 60basis points instead of a monthly fee. Best of luck
fixing the retirement world!

------
Bedon292
This is pretty awesome. If only there was a way to convince my employer this
is the right thing to do. I am around 2% between expense ratio and management
fees. Kind of a drag to know something like this is available and not being
used...

~~~
busque
This is terrible. Email us at hello@guideline and we'll see if we can help
with your employer.

------
dforrestwilson
I am all for improvement in the space, but is this actually an improvement?
The premise is to remove wrappers and other fee add-ons, but the product
itself is a wrapper for third-party investment funds, which raises the cost of
managing a 401k.

Vanguard can manage your company's 401k directly at a lower cost:
[https://investor.vanguard.com/what-we-offer/small-
business/o...](https://investor.vanguard.com/what-we-offer/small-
business/overview)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding...

~~~
busque
Yes, you are in fact misunderstanding the point. We don't wrap anything. We
use the same Vanguard funds as you would find in a Vanguard plan. It's the
exact same costs. We don't make money based on AUM fees. You're also
forgetting about all the other services you need in a 401(k), fiduciary,
compliance, education etc. Not available via Vangaurd you have to hire it out
and pay AUM fees.

------
siilats
Finance PhD here who also administers and custodies my own 401k plan. 1.
Treasuries have 6% volatility, stock market has 18% so your optimal modern
portfolio theory portfolio should have 3 times treasuries and 1 times stock.
2. This will give you annualized volatility of around 9%. If you want the 18%
volatility that the stock market offers you need to leverage 2x (your
portfolio is mostly treasuries). 3. You can use treasury futures to leverage,
you make money every 3 months on the roll. There is free roll analysis that
gives you the leverage costs on CME website. 4. Your 401k plan is just a 70
page pdf file that you sign. The small business CEO should be the custodian
and the fiduciary and just a. sign the 401k pdf trust document. b. open
vanguard account on the trust name. c. keep an excel sheet of everyones
contributions or have vanguard create sub accounts. 5. Its incredibly risky
having a 0.03% custodian. DAO and bitcoin come to mind. Whats the fiduciary
bond amount that Guideline has? Max €500k so if someone hacks their vanguard
omnibus account and wires the money out they are done.

------
rileymat2
The problem with retirement is not the fees. It is that the whole structure is
inappropriate for a single person who can live between 0 and 40 years after
retirement. Either you need way too much or you will run the risk of running
short. A traditional benefit like a pension is way more appropriate as there
less variability in the large population.

~~~
boulos
People are happy to sell you variable or fixed annuities. You're asking
someone to cover the risk of your longevity though, so expect to have that
work out in their favor not yours.

~~~
rileymat2
They are quite happy, the fees on those make the 401k industry look like Boy
Scouts.

------
fundedfounder
I'm glad to see a startup working to minimize fees in a 401(k) plan. I'm a bit
confused by what I see on
[https://www.guideline.com/pricing](https://www.guideline.com/pricing),
though.

How can you claim "No AUM Fees" if participants still pay 0.13%? Also, do
participants pay the 0.03% fee monthly, annually, or something else? What
about the 0.10% fee?

~~~
busque
The 0.13% is not paid to Guideline. The .10% is the average fund fee (the cost
of the mutual fund from the manager, Vanguard for instance) and the .03%
custodial charge that is a direct pass through for us. Not marked up in any
way. It is important to have a great custodian.

------
vostok
What's with charging a custodian fee to the employee? I've worked at multiple
employers that don't do that.

~~~
busque
This is a passed on fee, not charged by Guideline, not marked-up in anyway. We
are just being transparent instead of wrapping it in the expense ratio like
everyone else. It's very important to have an established custodian.

~~~
jbtule
That's interesting, does that mean you don't receive any compensation from
that expense ratio, like sub transfer agent fees?

~~~
busque
Correct. If fees are due to Guideline, we use them to pay down the .03
custodial fees. :)

------
cowsandmilk
What is the advantage of having a 401(k) instead of a SEP-IRA? My company has
stayed small and we are all happy with our SEP-IRA. Our employer contribution
seems to be larger than that allowed by a 401(k). I really don't understand
why a small company would want a 401(k) over a SEP-IRA.

------
nunez
I wouldn't care about 401(k) fees if they provided a bigger return. The
problem is that they don't. At all. None of those managed plans provide a
bigger return over a long time horizon than a three-headed fund (50% index,
25% bonds, 25% international indices).

------
nix0n
Can I get a 401(k) as an individual, or is this still only for employers?

~~~
ydt
If you're a straight 1099 / sole proprietor as an individual you can set up a
SEP IRA. If you establish an LLC you can create a simple-IRA. Both of these
allow you contribute money tax deferred and are much easier to manage than a
401k. Plus, you can trade them like any other brokerage account.

~~~
loeg
Solo 401(k)s have higher contribution limits and allow you to save more of
your business income tax-advantaged. The fees may be worth it.

------
thetest3r
What about [https://octavewealth.com/](https://octavewealth.com/)? They seem
like a better option.

~~~
ceejayoz
That $120/month base fee is going to be painful in comparison for a smaller
company.

------
ucaetano
Any info on what funds do they offer?

The site is completely void of any useful information, and I find it very hard
to believe that they can offer good funds with costs lower than Vanguard, when
this is such a scale-sensitive industry.

[Edit]

$8/month = $56/year, divided by Vanguard's 0.0018 equals $31k.

So if the employee has in his 401k:

\- $20k, the equivalent fee is 0.41%

\- $50k, the equivalent fee is 0.24%

\- $120k, the equivalent fee is 0.18%

\- $200k, the equivalent fee is 0.16%

\- $1M, the equivalent fee is 0.136%

~~~
birken
Vanguard has fees in addition to their funds' individual fees if they manage
the 401k for a small business, though my guess is they are less than
$8/month/person.

Having used Vanguard's site to manage my Google 401k, I can say it wasn't (and
still isn't) the most usable website in the world, and I have no doubt the
plan administration also isn't the most usable thing in the world. Then again,
Google was normally pretty smart about which vendors they chose and they used
Vanguard (and might still use --- I have no idea).

It is interesting that Guideline's whole blog post was about low cost and
almost certainly Vanguard is a less expensive option (in addition to being
secure and battle tested and they also probably have hired some lawyers).

When I watched Captain401's (YC company,
[https://captain401.com](https://captain401.com)) presentation about their
similar product, their whole pitch was about how much easier their service
made administration and setup of the plan.

~~~
busque
Actually, Vanguard is not less expensive. We use the same funds. You pay the
same price for the funds in Guideline as you would if you bought them in a
Vanguard plan. We don't make money on AUM, ever. We compete on being a full
service 401(k) provider, that is not the case for Vanguard. You would still
need all the third party services for fiduciary, compliance etc, and you would
have very high startup costs and not to mention the lack of payroll
integrations. And yes, we have super slick onboarding for employees and an 8
minute sign-up process for the business all without charging AUM based fees.

~~~
Rezo
This sounds really great for startups. Which payroll integrations do you
support (hoping for Gusto)? Could not find any mention on your site.

~~~
busque
Yes on Gusto ;)

------
cloudjacker
The problem with disintermediating is that it means you can't make any money
either. Looking forward to the blog article when some blockchain community is
undercutting your 0.13%

~~~
AjithAntony
Yeah, what is the secret sauce that lets them be profitable on only 3bp and
provide a fund expense of only 10bp? All the roboadvisors are a 15-25bp wrap
and ~16bp funds fees. A 401k provider is naturally more costly since there are
compliance issues.

~~~
busque
No secret sauce. We are a SaaS company, not an AUM fee based company. We are
not a robo advisor. We focus on retirement, tax advantaged accounts not cash
accounts. Compliance issues are perfect problems for computers to solve ;)

