ing crybabies.
If you do some research on these funds and distinguish between returns, you will find that often --- not always... Higher fees pay for better fund managers and often perform far better.
Not a 100% rule, but just shop around.
If I pay a 1.5% fee for a fund that earns an long term average 10% annual rate, isn't that better than paying a 0.25% fee for a fund only returning 7% average?
which funds return 10% over 30 - 40 years, please.
I have two that have exceeded 10% over the long haul. FCNTX and FMAGX I got into both in 1998. They have served me well.
FCNTX
1 YR: 23.45%
3 YR: 14.25%
5 YR: 20.37%
10 YR: 9.85%
Life: 12.52% May 1967
FMAGX
1 YR: 26.50%
3 YR: 10.97%
5 YR: 18.62%
10 YR: 5.21%
Life: 16.32% May 1962
Understand this:
Now I can cherry pick and find examples. Do you really want me to?Not a 100% rule, but just shop around.
I'm only saying that you will find funds that have better managers and they get paychecks accordingly.
Not even sure how much money is enough money to even retire mid-50....relying on risks associated with investment income is the sham...to retire comfortably you need a life-time of income that will never decrease or run-out...that's why I recommend rental properties..rofl same.
Being able to put 5% of my after-tax income at age 23 in a roth 401(k) plan while the company I work for matches it in a pre-tax traditional 401(k) plan gives me great tax diversification and makes it easier to retire at a young age.
The fact American wages are going down doesn't make 401(k) plans a fraud
technically you can put rental properties into your 401ks anyway.
Those two profiles return almost identically. You have to run them for 50 years before much of a difference emerges.
5,514 for the first, 5431 for the second, after 50 years. (assumes fees paid at beginning of period, returns calculated at end)
Fee loads make a huge difference, the problem is information asymmetry.
Do you think it is moral to take advantage of people?
Of course not. Cannot you not decipher my words?
Shop around.
Better fund managers can be expected to be paid better.
Do you expect nobody to profit from helping with your money?
Do you really want another regulatory commission? I will settle for a basic earnings chart being mandatorily provided showing how various fees impact investments, and especially the difference between front loaded and end loaded accounts. At some point, you have to allow people to make their own mistakes, and let the market of customers rise or fall with how satisfied customers are with their services and managers.
I am very, very disappointed by how many of you think we need to be so protected by everything out there.
I would love to see a group picture of you guys. I think I only have boutons here:
So, how do you know when people are taking advantage of other people?Of course not. Cannot you not decipher my words?
Shop around.
Better fund managers can be expected to be paid better.
Do you expect nobody to profit from helping with your money?
Do you really want another regulatory commission? I will settle for a basic earnings chart being mandatorily provided showing how various fees impact investments, and especially the difference between front loaded and end loaded accounts. At some point, you have to allow people to make their own mistakes, and let the market of customers rise or fall with how satisfied customers are with their services and managers.
I am very, very disappointed by how many of you think we need to be so protected by everything out there.
I would love to see a group picture of you guys. I think I only have boutons here:
We have laws against sticking a gun in someones face and stealing their money. That is clear.
But for cases where people use information and expertise they have to take advantage of other people, then it becomes a lot less clear.
Blaming the victim is not really what I would call an ethical response, I find it akin to blaming rape victims for being raped.
I am not advocating protecting everybody from everything, but neither will I make excuses for con-men, nor will I tolerate what amounts to theft by any other name.
Do you think thievery is acceptable? Should we blame someone whose house got broken into for not having an alarm system and decide not to prosecute the criminal?
OK Random, what legislation would you have. Where would you draw the line?
I thought of that this week when I was listening to the radio. On Kidd Krad , they are paying people's bills The person submits four monthly bills, and they draw one to pay. The woman had a $725 a month rent payment and a $550 a month car payment! What kind of car is she driving when she does not own a home?
SEC Official Describes Widespread Lawbreaking and Material Weakness in Controls in Private Equity Industry
At a private equity conference this week, Drew Bowden, a senior SEC official, told private equity fund managers and their investors in considerable detail about how the agency had found widespread stealing and other serious infractions in its audits of private equity firms.
In the years that I’ve been reading speeches from regulators, I’ve never seen anything remotely like Bowden’s talk. I’ve embedded it at the end of this post and strongly encourage you to read it in full.
Despite the at times disconcertingly polite tone, the SEC has now announced that more than 50 percent of private equity firms it has audited have engaged in serious infractions of securities laws.
These abuses were detected thanks to to Dodd Frank. Private equity general partners had been unregulated until early 2012, when they were required to SEC regulation as investment advisers.
Bowden heads the SEC’s examinations unit, and his rap sheet was based on his two years of experience in auditing private equity firms. As bad as embezzlement and other sharp practices are, at least as troubling is the revelation that the limited partners have been derelict in their duties. They’ve agreed to terms in their relationship with the general partners to make it easy for the general partners to abuse the investors. The general partners can steal from their limited partners because the limited partners are asleep. The LPs have failed to negotiate for contractual protections when they have the most leverage, prior to investing, and they’ve been unwilling or unable to monitor their investments effectively once they’ve handed over their money. Note that the industry was warned about this possible outcome; it corresponds to the worst scenario, ” A Broken Industry,” in a 2011 paper by Harvard Business School professor Josh Lerner.
Bowden pointed out that private equity is unique among the investment advisers the SEC supervises. The general partners’ control of portfolio companies gives them access to their cash flows, which the GPs can divert into their own pockets in numerous ways. Naked Capitalism readers may recognize that this arrangement is similar to the position mortgage servicers are in: they control the relationship with the funds source, and they are also responsible for records-keeping and remitting money to investors. And as we’ve chronicled at considerable length, servicers have shown remarkable creativity in lining their wallets and investors have been unable to discipline them.
Bowden described some of the ways that general partners can filch:
[A] private equity adviser is faced with temptations and conflicts with which most other advisers do not contend. For example, the private equity adviser can instruct a portfolio company it controls to hire the adviser, or an affiliate, or a preferred third party, to provide certain services and to set the terms of the engagement, including the price to be paid for the services … or to instruct the company to pay certain of the adviser’s bills or to reimburse the adviser for certain expenses incurred in managing its investment in the company … or to instruct the company to add to its payroll all of the adviser’s employees who manage the investment.
Translation: private equity provides uniquely lucrative temptations and opportunities to steal from investors. Yet, perversely, limited partners have blinded themselves to these risks. For over 30 years, their relationship has been been shrouded in secrecy, a “trust me” operation. As Bowden noted, “Lack of transparency and limited investor rights have been the norm in private equity for a very long time.” Even worse, limited partners defend the general partners’ obsession with secrecy and reflexively reject requests for information even when it isn’t confidential.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/...+capitalism%29
There are some big funds that have low fees and good managers because of the bulk business they do.
One suggestion: Vanguard.
Now give us your losers.
I have a small amount of money in two losers:
My big loser is FGRIX. It is at -34.03% since I started with it. However, it's load adjusted returns are:
1 YR: 19.69%
3 YR: 14.81%
5 YR: 18.98%
10 YR: 5.59%
Life: 194.09% Dec 1985
My FMAGX, previous post, is a personal loser at -18.12% because of my timing of getting into it as well.
My best money maker is FDGRX. It is at +140.37% since I jumped into it in May '98.
FDGRX:
1 YR: 22.60%
3 YR: 13.31%
5 YR: 21.26%
10 YR: 10.58%
Life: 1,108.69% Jan 1983
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-12-2014 at 08:06 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
