Yeah, I was discussing where the dad/adviser got the idea that ETF are somehow better tax-wise...because it is the boilerplate stuff directly from Fido's site. But because they're not comparing index mutual funds, it is kind of misleading (which was the point I was trying to make). Making a blanket statement that ETFs are always more efficient seems silly, but I think in certain instances it
may be true, like when comparing highly traded "active" funds (who does this in a taxable? oh, right, people that pay advisers to manage their stuff)... but definitely not when it came to index mutual funds.
You mean what Frankies girl wrote? That talks about active funds vs ETFs. That doesn't address the subject at all. The OP vs father-in-law discussion was index funds vs individual stocks. For which the tax rate is the same. It's possible to pick stocks that yield less tax, no dividends for example, but the loss of diversification is not worth it.
To be fair, the OP never said it was a comparison of
index mutual funds vs ETFs... just "mutual funds" and ETFs. Mutual funds can be indexed funds, but not all mutual funds are (most aren't actually). So yes, I assumed that they were discussing actively managed mutual funds, and that is probably what the dad (as told to him by his adviser, he's just drinking the koolaid) is meaning.
And if I got anything wrong, y'all feel free to correct me so the OP isn't misled. I am still relatively new at investing (just a few years into this).