Standard Chartered is chock full of costs at every step that matter a lot when you’re investing above a certain threshold. The foreign currency conversion costs much more, you must drag more cash at low or zero interest, the commission is higher, and time out of market has a cost (quarterly versus monthly for example) since markets on average go up, or at least that’s a reasonable forecast. Two and one month delays on bedding down your savings result in costs, too. And all that’s just on the front side. You’re focused on emergencies. OK, what if? What if there’s a grave emergency and you must (unfortunately) liquidate and liberate at least some of your long-term investments? You’d then take another trip through Standard Chartered’s higher cost structure.
And all that for what? Because you’re worried about a US$10 monthly minimum commission for the first decade or less of your multi-decade investing life? That’s it? That ten bucks might turn slightly less favorable for a short period of time? I don’t think that makes sense. That strikes me as irrational (tiny) loss aversion, not cost and total return maximization. And if that’s your thinking, then you’re likely going to struggle with the markets themselves when a -5% swing is just another normal day.
I don’t think anybody has a problem with using Standard Chartered at 3 digit sort of monthly savings flows. Then it does make sense to “batch up” and buy with them. Much above that, don’t worry about it. IB works great.
