Newbee

I am trying to get information about investing in Mutual Funds. No idea
where to start. Any help would be great.

Dave

Re: Newbee

<> wrote in message
news:
>I am trying to get information about investing in Mutual Funds. No idea
> where to start. Any help would be great.
>
> Dave

Start here:


then go down the list under "education".

Re: Newbee

I should mention that most of the stuff you read will be Bogle nonsense but
a lot of people say it's great.


> Start here:
>
>
> then go down the list under "education".
>

Re: Newbee

<> wrote
> I am trying to get information about investing in Mutual Funds. No idea
> where to start. Any help would be great.

Re: Newbee

Long ago when OCR came out, I was devising computers things. I'd found
a $30US scanning device about the size of a roll of cellophane, so I
employed it by cutting the back binding from a rather large and heavy
hardback I found in disarray at a Salvation Army. The OCR results
turned out to be horrible, riddled with mistakes, which I then took to
hand. I transposed the book into 21156 computer generated linefeeds,
by and large legible ASCII. A lady wrote it, Nancy Dunnan, in loving
memory to her father, an investor. The book's title is 3Dun &
Bradstreet's Guide to your Investments. What I like about Nancy is her
inclusive dealings with a good many, broader instruments that funds
may, or not, choose to incorporate. The many facets, conceivably,
25,000 funds have to vie and amalgamate into a suitable end for the
prospectus.

wrote:
> I am trying to get information about investing in Mutual Funds. No idea
> where to start. Any help would be great.

Re: Newbee

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>I should mention that most of the stuff you read will be Bogle nonsense but
>a lot of people say it's great.
>

Ed, how about that E book link you used to give?

>
>> Start here:
>>
>>
>> then go down the list under "education".
>>
>
>

Re: Newbee

There is a book you should read before putting one penny into any
investment. It is a book I have bought by the dozen to give to family and
friends who have a bent for stock market investing. That is "BULL! A
History of the Boom, 1982 - 1999" subtitle "What drove the breakneck
market - and what every investor needs to know about market cycles" by
Maggie Mahar. It reads like a murder mystery, but it is sobering reality.
The lesson it will teach you is that the market is driven in cycles and the
period covered was the greatest bull market the likes of which only happens
once in a lifetime. This lesson is that in order to be a successful
investor you need to time the market. That is, you need to be in the market
when it is in a bull market cycle and be out when it is in a bear market
cycle. This is the diametrically opposite of "conventional wisdom" and it
runs counter to all the beginner's guides to investing found on book
shelves.




<> wrote in message
news:
>I am trying to get information about investing in Mutual Funds. No idea
> where to start. Any help would be great.
>
> Dave
>

Re: Newbee

Someone sometime ago made a remark - "bring it on." His reasoning
seems to be that money doesn't disappear, it shifts.

Another more recent media blurb impressed me much in the same way - the
professional manager/investor is about earning his worth, above and
beyond, but especially during adversity. Commitment to worth needn't
be factored out from risk tolerance.

I sat through one such post-boom performance, something then of the
idealist. But what I came to see as reason to be out were fund family
and not market issues - lagging competitors, trade legaility practices,
and a cadre of managers exercising stock options in order to retire. I
had to call a representative to expedite what seemed postured as an
inadvertant clerical error over withheld withdrawls. The cold oddity in
an ensuing silence I reflected over confirmation to intent. And again
in the briefest hint of diliberate apprehensiveness, as if an acerbic
reaction over losses sustained were solicited or, indeed, conciliatory.
I'll bet they train guys to be like that.

Marlowe wrote:
> That is, you need to be in the market
> when it is in a bull market cycle and be out when it is in a bear market
> cycle.

Re: Newbee

"Gary C" <> wrote

> Ed, how about that E book link you used to give?

Frank Armstrong

Re: Newbee

Sweet site, thought not especially a gearfreak's delight. Most salient
component I found [-Ch 21- Investor, Heal Thyself], 'Don't forget to
look into this mirror for a reflection of yourself: GSPC, IXIC, DOW.'

Gary C wrote:
> Ed, how about that E book link you used to give?

Re: Newbee

Ed wrote:
> I should mention that most of the stuff you read will be Bogle nonsense but
> a lot of people say it's great.

Isn't Bogle nonsense better than most financial nonsense?

Re: Newbee

"Norm De Plume" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Ed wrote:
>> I should mention that most of the stuff you read will be Bogle nonsense
>> but
>> a lot of people say it's great.
>
> Isn't Bogle nonsense better than most financial nonsense?

It's ok I guess. To me, everything he is a walking ad for Vanguard, his
books are ads for Vanguard.

You may have noticed that since the Vanguard 500 and the Vanguard Total
Stock Market Index funds are under water for 5 years a lot of the praise
that index funds were getting has disappeared.

Re: Newbee

Ed wrote:
> "Norm De Plume" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
>>Ed wrote:
>>
>>>I should mention that most of the stuff you read will be Bogle nonsense
>>>but
>>>a lot of people say it's great.
>>
>>Isn't Bogle nonsense better than most financial nonsense?
>
>
> It's ok I guess. To me, everything he is a walking ad for Vanguard, his
> books are ads for Vanguard.
>
> You may have noticed that since the Vanguard 500 and the Vanguard Total
> Stock Market Index funds are under water for 5 years a lot of the praise
> that index funds were getting has disappeared.
>
>
Bogle's and Brennan's "Buy & Hold index funds" philosophy is OK in a
raging bull market like 1982-2000 and is probably the optimum strategy
for that case.

However, it fails completely in a bear market like 2000-2003 or a
secular bear "static" period like 1965-1982 or 2000-2005 when beginning
and end prices are about the same. The only thing that works then is
timing.

Index funds are fine, provided you are in them when the market is going
up and out when it is going down.

Re: Newbee

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dgj8b5


> Bogle's and Brennan's "Buy & Hold index funds" philosophy is OK in a
> raging bull market like 1982-2000 and is probably the optimum strategy for
> that case.
>
> However, it fails completely in a bear market like 2000-2003 or a secular
> bear "static" period like 1965-1982 or 2000-2005 when beginning and end
> prices are about the same. The only thing that works then is timing.
>
> Index funds are fine, provided you are in them when the market is going up
> and out when it is going down.

This can be said for any fund. Some index funds did just fine 2000-2005. Mid
and small cap index funds did ok, especially value. I don't think the
problem is so much the index but it's the buy and hold that can hurt.

One of the most common arguments in favor of index funds is low expenses.
They do have low expenses but stocks have no expenses other than a one time
commission to the broker. If people were really concerned about low expenses
then you think more of them would opt for stocks. I think they prefer funds
for a variety of reasons, diversification probably at the top of the list,
no time for research another big one. If people have no time for research or
no interest in doing it they must just buy and hold. Timing would be out of
the question for these people.

I have family members with 401k plans at work. If I ask any of them how
their plan is doing I get a blank look or they'll just say they have no
idea. If I ask them for the names of the funds in their plan I get the same
response. These are dollar cost averaging buy and holders if there ever were
any.

My spouse's plan buys shares for her every week. Each payroll deduction goes
right to work.
Maybe once or twice each year she'll ask me how much it's worth, she has no
idea.

Re: Newbee

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:

> If I ask any of them how their plan is doing I get a blank look or they'll
> just say they have no idea. If I ask them for the names of the funds in
> their plan I get the same response.

Common problem.
(yet they can name the batting order and stats for the 1992 World Series)

Re: Newbee

"Gary C" <> wrote
>
> "Ed" <> wrote
>> If I ask any of them how their plan is doing I get a blank look or
>> they'll just say they have no idea. If I ask them for the names of the
>> funds in their plan I get the same response.
>
> Common problem.
> (yet they can name the batting order and stats for the 1992 World Series)

Ha, not my wife. "World Series", is the the baseball one? Yes Dear.

Re: Newbee

Gary C wrote:
> > If I ask any of them how their plan is doing I get a blank look or they=
'll
> > just say they have no idea. If I ask them for the names of the funds in
> > their plan I get the same response.
>
> Common problem.

Technical burnout from insular specialization. Happens to the best of
them. In Lisbon Professor Se=F1or Jose Ortega y Gasset's The Revolt of
the Masses, it's the reasoning of The Couch Potato's Sovereign
Syndrome.

Re: Newbee

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------


A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel

www.vanguard.com

www.indexfunds.com

www.morningstar.com

All About Index Funds, Richard Ferri



www.ishares.com

www.fool.com





S&P is tracking how well index funds perform against actively managed funds.
This site alone should convince you of the superiority of index funds.


www.scottrade.com 'I recommend this broker.

This is a "S&P Index Versus Active Funds Scorecard"

Don't buy into the market timing, technical analysis( e.g. resistance
& "W" pattern (Huh????)), money can be moved around based on someone's
version of common sense, and look at these returns after the fact rhetoric.
Think in terms long term returns (5+ Years), simplicity, and costs, the
lower the better. The higher the risk the higher the potential return
but
the higher the potential loss. Absorb risk in proportion to the time you
will be in the market.

There are no secret methods for making money in the market other than
selling "information"to others purporting they will be taught how to time
the market, read charts, etc. Remember Wade Cook, the Wall Street Money
Machine?

Most the folks on this NG have the hubris that they are smarter than the
market. The have invest huge chunks of time doing "research," and they can
stand the thought that nearly all of this time has been wasted.



> wrote in message
news:
>I am trying to get information about investing in Mutual Funds. No idea
> where to start. Any help would be great.
>
> Dave
>

Re: Newbee

'I pay lawyers to tell me how to do what I want. I don't pay them to
tell what I cannot do.' -John D. Rockefeller

NoEd wrote:
> Most the folks on this NG have the hubris that they are smarter than the
> market. The have invest huge chunks of time doing "research," and they can
> stand the thought that nearly all of this time has been wasted.

Re: Newbee

"NoEd" <> wrote

> Think in terms long term returns (5+ Years), simplicity, and costs, the
> lower the better.

Vanguard 500 (VFINX), average annual total return for the 5 years ending
8/31/2005, -2.82%.
Vanguard Total Stock Market (VTSMX), average annual total return for the 5
years ending 8/31/2005, -1.74%.
Vanguard Growth Index, average annual total return for the 5 years ending
8/31/2005, -7.31%.
Vanguard Value Index (VIVAX), average annual total return for the 5 years
ending 8/31/2005, +2.34%.

For 5 years VFINX ranked 447 out of 929 large cap blend funds.
For 5 years VTSMX ranked 310 out of 929 large cap blend funds.
For 5 years VIVAX ranked 381 out of 579 large cap value funds.

The good news is that you can save a few pennies on expenses, that will
help boost returns.
Keep in mind that the value index fund is the only one that didn't lose your
money over the past 5 years.

Why did NoEd post this?
Easy one, misery loves company.

My largest fund is PRWCX, T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Fund. It's
classified as a "moderate allocation" fund. Over the past 5 years it ranked
4 out of 528 funds.
It's average annual total returns were 13.2% for the past 5 years. If the
expenses for this fund were as low as they are for the Vanguard index funds
the returns would have been a little higher.

I currently own 8 funds. My returns for these funds since the first purchase
of each are as follows:
11.14%
10.89%
10.11%
17.24%
11.85%
12.96%*
22.95%
34.32%

The names of the funds were left off intentionally, the reason for this is
because I am not a strict buy and hold investor and if I sell any of these
funds because I think they're done for awhile, you would never know and
could be headed for disaster. Seven of the funds listed were purchased after
2000, one was purchaed in 1991*.

Correction

"Ed" <> wrote

> I currently own 8 funds. My **annual** returns for these funds since the
> first purchase of each are as follows:

Re: Newbee

Thanks Ed for the info. Do you mind to list the asset allocation
percentages in your portpolio? like

Large Value 20%
Large Growth 10%
Mid
Small
International
Bonds....

I am new to the mutual fund world and I would like to compare your
allocations with mine to get an understanding.

I am sure that I wont try to mimic your portpolio and dont complain
that I last money because of your suggessions :)

Re: Newbee

Sorry Ed,

The good news is that you have your facts wrong again. The S&P 500 has
outperformed 64.39% of the large blend funds over the last 5 years. More
good news is that you have probably not held PRWCX very long and that the
RTM is on the horizon. Ed, you have already been caught in a lie about the
funds you hold Your foolishness was exposed which is the reason for this:

The names of the funds were left off intentionally, the reason for this is
> because I am not a strict buy and hold investor and if I sell any of these
> funds because I think they're done for awhile, you would never know and
> could be headed for disaster. Seven of the funds listed were purchased
> after 2000, one was purchaed in 1991*.





"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> Think in terms long term returns (5+ Years), simplicity, and costs, the
>> lower the better.
>
> Vanguard 500 (VFINX), average annual total return for the 5 years ending
> 8/31/2005, -2.82%.
> Vanguard Total Stock Market (VTSMX), average annual total return for the 5
> years ending 8/31/2005, -1.74%.
> Vanguard Growth Index, average annual total return for the 5 years ending
> 8/31/2005, -7.31%.
> Vanguard Value Index (VIVAX), average annual total return for the 5 years
> ending 8/31/2005, +2.34%.
>
> For 5 years VFINX ranked 447 out of 929 large cap blend funds.
> For 5 years VTSMX ranked 310 out of 929 large cap blend funds.
> For 5 years VIVAX ranked 381 out of 579 large cap value funds.
>
> The good news is that you can save a few pennies on expenses, that will
> help boost returns.
> Keep in mind that the value index fund is the only one that didn't lose
> your money over the past 5 years.
>
> Why did NoEd post this?
> Easy one, misery loves company.
>
> My largest fund is PRWCX, T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Fund. It's
> classified as a "moderate allocation" fund. Over the past 5 years it
> ranked 4 out of 528 funds.
> It's average annual total returns were 13.2% for the past 5 years. If the
> expenses for this fund were as low as they are for the Vanguard index
> funds the returns would have been a little higher.
>
> I currently own 8 funds. My returns for these funds since the first
> purchase of each are as follows:
> 11.14%
> 10.89%
> 10.11%
> 17.24%
> 11.85%
> 12.96%*
> 22.95%
> 34.32%
>
> The names of the funds were left off intentionally, the reason for this is
> because I am not a strict buy and hold investor and if I sell any of these
> funds because I think they're done for awhile, you would never know and
> could be headed for disaster. Seven of the funds listed were purchased
> after 2000, one was purchaed in 1991*.
>
>
>
>

Re: Newbee

As usual, NoEd, EdNo, doNE, oNEd or whoever you are but dare not reveal,
you have missed the point.

The S&P500 was 1,455.2 on the first working day of 2000. It is now about
1,228. So, in nearly 6 years it has lost 15.6%. The Index Funds tracking
the S&P500 will have generally done even worse due to their expenses and
tracking errors, although some errors may accidentally have been
slightly in the investors' favour. Let's guess about another 0.5% a
year, or another 3% loss making about 18% loss in total.

How does it help the buy & hold investor in index funds who has lost 18%
in 6 years that some percentage of managed funds has done even worse
than this? A little, but not a lot.

Ed has pointed out that the funds he has invested in have averaged about
12% p.a. gain over this period. You do know the difference between a
gain and a loss don't you? That means his investments are up about
1.12^6-1 = 97% as against your index fund's loss of 18%

But of course you are quite right to follow a method that worked up to
year 2000 but not since. It need some people to make losses so others
can make gains.

NoEd wrote:
> Sorry Ed,
>
> The good news is that you have your facts wrong again. The S&P 500 has
> outperformed 64.39% of the large blend funds over the last 5 years. More
> good news is that you have probably not held PRWCX very long and that the
> RTM is on the horizon. Ed, you have already been caught in a lie about the
> funds you hold Your foolishness was exposed which is the reason for this:
>
> The names of the funds were left off intentionally, the reason for this is
>
>>because I am not a strict buy and hold investor and if I sell any of these
>>funds because I think they're done for awhile, you would never know and
>>could be headed for disaster. Seven of the funds listed were purchased
>>after 2000, one was purchaed in 1991*.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
>>"NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>
>>>Think in terms long term returns (5+ Years), simplicity, and costs, the
>>>lower the better.
>>
>>Vanguard 500 (VFINX), average annual total return for the 5 years ending
>>8/31/2005, -2.82%.
>>Vanguard Total Stock Market (VTSMX), average annual total return for the 5
>>years ending 8/31/2005, -1.74%.
>>Vanguard Growth Index, average annual total return for the 5 years ending
>>8/31/2005, -7.31%.
>>Vanguard Value Index (VIVAX), average annual total return for the 5 years
>>ending 8/31/2005, +2.34%.
>>
>>For 5 years VFINX ranked 447 out of 929 large cap blend funds.
>>For 5 years VTSMX ranked 310 out of 929 large cap blend funds.
>>For 5 years VIVAX ranked 381 out of 579 large cap value funds.
>>
>>The good news is that you can save a few pennies on expenses, that will
>>help boost returns.
>>Keep in mind that the value index fund is the only one that didn't lose
>>your money over the past 5 years.
>>
>>Why did NoEd post this?
>>Easy one, misery loves company.
>>
>>My largest fund is PRWCX, T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Fund. It's
>>classified as a "moderate allocation" fund. Over the past 5 years it
>>ranked 4 out of 528 funds.
>>It's average annual total returns were 13.2% for the past 5 years. If the
>>expenses for this fund were as low as they are for the Vanguard index
>>funds the returns would have been a little higher.
>>
>>I currently own 8 funds. My returns for these funds since the first
>>purchase of each are as follows:
>>11.14%
>>10.89%
>>10.11%
>>17.24%
>>11.85%
>>12.96%*
>>22.95%
>>34.32%
>>
>>The names of the funds were left off intentionally, the reason for this is
>>because I am not a strict buy and hold investor and if I sell any of these
>>funds because I think they're done for awhile, you would never know and
>>could be headed for disaster. Seven of the funds listed were purchased
>>after 2000, one was purchaed in 1991*.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: Newbee

David,

If fact you have missed the point, not surprising for a guy who cannot tell
the difference between good and evil and who thinks the US is a terrorist
country. The point is there is no method that will allow anyone to pick
funds in advance that will beat the respective index over any reasonable
length of time, i.e 5 years+. The S&P 500 beat over 64% of the other large
blend funds over the last 5 years, so pointing out AFTER THE FACT which
funds beat the index or implying there are proven methods that guarantee
success is not promoting an argument. It only shows my point is accurate and
there is no counter point. The question I have then is did you bail out
1/2/2000? I doubt it since there is no method that can time the market
accurately either.

Here is reference to William Sharpe's web site. He won Nobel prise in 1990
in economic science. Even Ed should be understand most of the articles.



If there was a method to choose funds, how come the very top performing fund
cannot be selected in advance say monthly? It looks like GAGEX has returned
66%+ YTD. Is your entire bankroll on this fund? Has any portion been
invested in this fund YTD?


"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dgkg74$uje$
> As usual, NoEd, EdNo, doNE, oNEd or whoever you are but dare not reveal,
> you have missed the point.
>
> The S&P500 was 1,455.2 on the first working day of 2000. It is now about
> 1,228. So, in nearly 6 years it has lost 15.6%. The Index Funds tracking
> the S&P500 will have generally done even worse due to their expenses and
> tracking errors, although some errors may accidentally have been slightly
> in the investors' favour. Let's guess about another 0.5% a year, or
> another 3% loss making about 18% loss in total.
>
> How does it help the buy & hold investor in index funds who has lost 18%
> in 6 years that some percentage of managed funds has done even worse than
> this? A little, but not a lot.
>
> Ed has pointed out that the funds he has invested in have averaged about
> 12% p.a. gain over this period. You do know the difference between a gain
> and a loss don't you? That means his investments are up about 1.12^6-1 =
> 97% as against your index fund's loss of 18%
>
> But of course you are quite right to follow a method that worked up to
> year 2000 but not since. It need some people to make losses so others can
> make gains.
>
> NoEd wrote:
>> Sorry Ed,
>>
>> The good news is that you have your facts wrong again. The S&P 500 has
>> outperformed 64.39% of the large blend funds over the last 5 years. More
>> good news is that you have probably not held PRWCX very long and that the
>> RTM is on the horizon. Ed, you have already been caught in a lie about
>> the funds you hold Your foolishness was exposed which is the reason for
>> this:
>>
>> The names of the funds were left off intentionally, the reason for this
>> is
>>
>>>because I am not a strict buy and hold investor and if I sell any of
>>>these funds because I think they're done for awhile, you would never know
>>>and could be headed for disaster. Seven of the funds listed were
>>>purchased after 2000, one was purchaed in 1991*.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Ed" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>
>>>"NoEd" <> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Think in terms long term returns (5+ Years), simplicity, and costs, the
>>>>lower the better.
>>>
>>>Vanguard 500 (VFINX), average annual total return for the 5 years ending
>>>8/31/2005, -2.82%.
>>>Vanguard Total Stock Market (VTSMX), average annual total return for the
>>>5 years ending 8/31/2005, -1.74%.
>>>Vanguard Growth Index, average annual total return for the 5 years ending
>>>8/31/2005, -7.31%.
>>>Vanguard Value Index (VIVAX), average annual total return for the 5 years
>>>ending 8/31/2005, +2.34%.
>>>
>>>For 5 years VFINX ranked 447 out of 929 large cap blend funds.
>>>For 5 years VTSMX ranked 310 out of 929 large cap blend funds.
>>>For 5 years VIVAX ranked 381 out of 579 large cap value funds.
>>>
>>>The good news is that you can save a few pennies on expenses, that will
>>>help boost returns.
>>>Keep in mind that the value index fund is the only one that didn't lose
>>>your money over the past 5 years.
>>>
>>>Why did NoEd post this?
>>>Easy one, misery loves company.
>>>
>>>My largest fund is PRWCX, T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Fund. It's
>>>classified as a "moderate allocation" fund. Over the past 5 years it
>>>ranked 4 out of 528 funds.
>>>It's average annual total returns were 13.2% for the past 5 years. If the
>>>expenses for this fund were as low as they are for the Vanguard index
>>>funds the returns would have been a little higher.
>>>
>>>I currently own 8 funds. My returns for these funds since the first
>>>purchase of each are as follows:
>>>11.14%
>>>10.89%
>>>10.11%
>>>17.24%
>>>11.85%
>>>12.96%*
>>>22.95%
>>>34.32%
>>>
>>>The names of the funds were left off intentionally, the reason for this
>>>is because I am not a strict buy and hold investor and if I sell any of
>>>these funds because I think they're done for awhile, you would never know
>>>and could be headed for disaster. Seven of the funds listed were
>>>purchased after 2000, one was purchaed in 1991*.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

Re: Newbee

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dgkg74$uje$

>
> How does it help the buy & hold investor in index funds who has lost 18%
> in 6 years

NoEd can buy shares CHEAPER now (and has since 09/00),
don't you get it? MUHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Re: Newbee

You're a sad story. Someone should make a movie.


"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> Sorry Ed,
>
> The good news is that you have your facts wrong again. The S&P 500 has
> outperformed 64.39% of the large blend funds over the last 5 years. More
> good news is that you have probably not held PRWCX very long and that the
> RTM is on the horizon. Ed, you have already been caught in a lie about
> the funds you hold

Re: Newbee

"NoEd" <> wrote

> If fact you have missed the point, not surprising for a guy who cannot
> tell the difference between good and evil and who thinks the US is a
> terrorist country. The point is there is no method that will allow anyone
> to pick funds in advance that will beat the respective index over any
> reasonable length of time, i.e 5 years+. The S&P 500 beat over 64% of the
> other large blend funds over the last 5 years, so pointing out AFTER THE
> FACT which funds beat the index or implying there are proven methods that
> guarantee success is not promoting an argument. It only shows my point is
> accurate and there is no counter point.

In your tiny mind there is no counterpoint, I can accept that.

> The question I have then is did you bail out 1/2/2000? I doubt it since
> there is no method that can time the market accurately either.

I actually started in 1999. How to time the market: If it seems too good to
be true it probably is.

So sorry you lost so much.

Re: Newbee

Sure, I just did an xray yesterday.

If you are familiar with Morningstar style boxes:
23 28 14
12 08 06
03 04 02

Cash 33%
US stocks 39%
Foreign stocks 19%
Bonds 4%
Other the rest.





"p001" <> wrote in message
news:
> Thanks Ed for the info. Do you mind to list the asset allocation
> percentages in your portpolio? like
>
> Large Value 20%
> Large Growth 10%
> Mid
> Small
> International
> Bonds....
>
> I am new to the mutual fund world and I would like to compare your
> allocations with mine to get an understanding.
>
> I am sure that I wont try to mimic your portpolio and dont complain
> that I last money because of your suggessions :)
>

Please note:

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
> Sure, I just did an xray yesterday.
>
> If you are familiar with Morningstar style boxes:
> 23 28 14
> 12 08 06
> 03 04 02

> Cash 33%, this is out of harms way, just about no risk. If 1/3 of my
> portfolio is out of harms way and VFINX is fully invested then I have
> dramatically lowered the relative risk in my portfolio.

Please note the first vertical column in the style box grid above. These are
value stocks and generally lower in risk than a large cap blend index,
further lowering risk.

If my risk is much lower than the SP500 and my portfolio is so far ahead of
it that just makes it sweeter. NoEd is a loser and should be ignored.

If valuations ever become attractive in the growth area then I will be
there, I just don't see it at this time.

> Cash 33%
> US stocks 39%
> Foreign stocks 19%
> Bonds 4%
> Other the rest.

Re: Newbee

On 2005-09-18, David Wilkinson <> wrote:
> Ed has pointed out that the funds he has invested in have averaged about
> 12% p.a. gain over this period.

Ed has claimed this, which is more than a slightly different matter.

Since Ed refuses to provide information needed to verify this claim,
it can't be verified. The little old lady investment club claimed they
were beating the market, but they weren't.

Re: Newbee

The infamous "blank out" rejoinder. How come you missed the highest
returning fund?


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> If fact you have missed the point, not surprising for a guy who cannot
>> tell the difference between good and evil and who thinks the US is a
>> terrorist country. The point is there is no method that will allow
>> anyone to pick funds in advance that will beat the respective index over
>> any reasonable length of time, i.e 5 years+. The S&P 500 beat over 64%
>> of the other large blend funds over the last 5 years, so pointing out
>> AFTER THE FACT which funds beat the index or implying there are proven
>> methods that guarantee success is not promoting an argument. It only
>> shows my point is accurate and there is no counter point.
>
> In your tiny mind there is no counterpoint, I can accept that.
>
>> The question I have then is did you bail out 1/2/2000? I doubt it since
>> there is no method that can time the market accurately either.
>
> I actually started in 1999. How to time the market: If it seems too good
> to be true it probably is.
>
> So sorry you lost so much.
>
>

Re: Newbee

7/6/2005: Up 23% since 7/2005 at 8% exposure. So far, less at variance
from an awkwardness I entirely left after running amok with ICENX &
VGENX, EWK, XLE, XLU during a stint for the 2005 2nd quartile. Low
composite comfort level likely induced by too many instances
aforementioned.

8/1/2003: I broke the ice and dropped out of B&H Loyalist bounds,
where I'd found myself domestically hedged broadly throughout a single
fund family. Went supermarket shopping, or I'd probably puked. Here,
let's dump the shopping bag. What went in minus what's on today's
refund gets %33 increase at redemption. And 8th month then by 8 now
means 2 years divided by 2 or 16% avg annual. Looks OK to me, should be
demure enough for fatcity. But that's also weaned off tattered tits
from B&H, despite trace churning more evident nowadays. Mia culpa,
though not always easy to catch, I'm certainly chasing
fishnet-stockings.

NoEd wrote:

> If there was a method to choose funds, how come the very top performing fund
> cannot be selected in advance say monthly? It looks like GAGEX has returned
> 66%+ YTD. Is your entire bankroll on this fund? Has any portion been
> invested in this fund YTD?

Re: Newbee

Off your medication?


"Flasherly" <> wrote in message
news:
> 7/6/2005: Up 23% since 7/2005 at 8% exposure. So far, less at variance
> from an awkwardness I entirely left after running amok with ICENX &
> VGENX, EWK, XLE, XLU during a stint for the 2005 2nd quartile. Low
> composite comfort level likely induced by too many instances
> aforementioned.
>
> 8/1/2003: I broke the ice and dropped out of B&H Loyalist bounds,
> where I'd found myself domestically hedged broadly throughout a single
> fund family. Went supermarket shopping, or I'd probably puked. Here,
> let's dump the shopping bag. What went in minus what's on today's
> refund gets %33 increase at redemption. And 8th month then by 8 now
> means 2 years divided by 2 or 16% avg annual. Looks OK to me, should be
> demure enough for fatcity. But that's also weaned off tattered tits
> from B&H, despite trace churning more evident nowadays. Mia culpa,
> though not always easy to catch, I'm certainly chasing
> fishnet-stockings.
>
> NoEd wrote:
>
>> If there was a method to choose funds, how come the very top performing
>> fund
>> cannot be selected in advance say monthly? It looks like GAGEX has
>> returned
>> 66%+ YTD. Is your entire bankroll on this fund? Has any portion been
>> invested in this fund YTD?
>

Re: Newbee

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> The infamous "blank out" rejoinder. How come you missed the highest
> returning fund?

Easy one. I try to keep risk at a reasonable level, lower than your SP500
index. A fund with the highest return potential also has the highest loss
potential. NoEd, this is basics 101, even you should understand this.

Investing in funds with more consistant returns, funds that most often make
money or stay close to level even in down markets is better than being in an
aggressive fund that takes a big hit. Some people say that using beta when
deciding on a fund is meaningless. I disagree. In times of uncertainess,
like now, or times when I feel the market is overvalued I want to be in low
beta funds. When the market looks cheap to me I want to be in higher beta
funds.

Re: Newbee

"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote

> On 2005-09-18, David Wilkinson <>
> wrote:

>> Ed has pointed out that the funds he has invested in have averaged about
>> 12% p.a. gain over this period.
>
> Ed has claimed this, which is more than a slightly different matter.
>
> Since Ed refuses to provide information needed to verify this claim,
> it can't be verified. The little old lady investment club claimed they
> were beating the market, but they weren't.

If you can't accept anything you read here as being accurate then why do you
bother coming here at all?

I have posted my portfolio at least once this year, instead of drooling all
over your chin you could do a search and find that. Of course it wouldn't
list my buys and sells and I won't post my statements so you are left with a
choice. Accept it or don't. Your choice, like you, is irrelevant.

I proved to you that Massachusetts has FreeCare and you still refuse to
accept it as fact because some friend of yours couldn't find it. If I give
you the website complete with phone numbers and instructions on how to apply
and you still insist that it doesn't exsist then why should I believe that
posting my buys and sells would make you believe it's fact? No one is asking
you to believe anything.

Re: Newbee

On 2005-09-19, Ed <> wrote:
> If you can't accept anything you read here as being accurate then why do you
> bother coming here at all?

I can accept lots of things, but don't take claims incapable of being
verified seriously.

> Of course it wouldn't
> list my buys and sells

so of course it can't be used to check your claims.

> I proved to you that Massachusetts has FreeCare and you still refuse to
> accept it as fact

Another lie by Ed. I know FreeCare works, but I also know it doesn't
cover everything. I had a friend unfortunate to have something
FreeCare didn't cover, and *you* still refuse to accept it as fact.

However, I don't know why you obsess over the freecare issue. You
remind me of Monk on that issue.

Re: Newbee

"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote

> However, I don't know why you obsess over the freecare issue.

Why do you obsess over a fun stock portfolio I picked in the 1990's?

Re: Newbee

On 2005-09-19, Ed <> wrote:
> Why do you obsess over a fun stock portfolio I picked in the 1990's?

I haven't mentioned that in ages. I used to mention it because you
claimed it would beat the index for 10 years and it didn't.

Re: Newbee

But then you are admitting there is no method for choosing funds that will
have the highest returns. If you could then, risk would be irrelevant.
Basically then your method is to select funds generally without regard to
costs that have performed exceptionally well in the recent past. If one of
the funds starts to tank then you quickly sell and buy another fund.

Then you simply use historic returns as your basis for selection, maybe with
some evaluation of risk. If the respective index beat 75% of the funds then
only select from the 25% that did beat the index. In essence you approach
fund selection as a TA investor approaches stock selection. Costs have
little or no impact on which funds are selected. Using this approach I
guess I would want to know about as many funds as possible, in case I have
to dump a fund and buy another.

This is a very risky approach. Here is an interesting quote:

"One of the biggest arguments against market timing is that mistakes can be
costly. Though the Standard & Poor's 500 index returned 13.26 percent over
the past 10 years, if you missed the six best months in that period your
return would have been only 8.29 percent, according to Barker French, Chief
Investment Officer at Brinker Capital, a money management firm outside
Philadelphia. Over the past 75 years, he says, the 62 best months returned
about 11 percent per month; the remaining 838 months had an average monthly
return of just 0.2 percent per month. "



Here is a simple article on the topic of picking funds:

Can You Pick the Winners at the Mutual Fund Track?



No quantity of facts that contradict ones beliefs will change those beliefs
if one is more concern about believing one is right than actually being
right.

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
> news:
>> The infamous "blank out" rejoinder. How come you missed the highest
>> returning fund?
>
> Easy one. I try to keep risk at a reasonable level, lower than your SP500
> index. A fund with the highest return potential also has the highest loss
> potential. NoEd, this is basics 101, even you should understand this.
>
> Investing in funds with more consistant returns, funds that most often
> make money or stay close to level even in down markets is better than
> being in an aggressive fund that takes a big hit. Some people say that
> using beta when deciding on a fund is meaningless. I disagree. In times of
> uncertainess, like now, or times when I feel the market is overvalued I
> want to be in low beta funds. When the market looks cheap to me I want to
> be in higher beta funds.
>
>

Re: Newbee

David Wilkinson wrote:

> But of course you are quite right to follow a method that worked up to
> year 2000 but not since. It need some people to make losses so others
> can make gains.

Actually, "buy and hold" of a clone of the S&P 500 didn't work so good
in the 1970's either.

I believe the period 2000-2012 is going to resemble the period
1970-1982, in the sense that returns of the S&P 500 thru this decade are
going to be disappointing.

Now if you're a young newbie planning to hold your funds for 30 more
years, you can just dollar-cost-average your way thru such disappointing
periods.

But at my age and state of health, I don't have 30 more years.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: Newbee

Ed wrote:

> I actually started in 1999. How to time the market: If it seems too good to
> be true it probably is.

But you're leaving out the prerequisite for that: Unless you want to
stay in cash throughout bearish periods like 2000-2002, you need to be
flexible enough to invest in promising markets elsewhere. You, Ed, seem
to play ball all over the field, investing in emerging markets like
India, closed-end funds, etc.

Many folks with 401(k) plans have limited choices and can't do that.

So if your only choices in your 401(k) are U.S. stock funds, while you
might be lucky enough to find U.S. stock funds that outperform the
indexes, you might be unlucky enough to get stuck with some real dogs
(particularly if those are the only choices in your 401(k) plan). So
for a newbie investor who's limited to only the U.S. stock market, index
funds are the safest no-brainer way to play that market.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: Newbee

NoEd wrote:
[Snip]
> This is a very risky approach. Here is an interesting quote:
>
> "One of the biggest arguments against market timing is that mistakes can be
> costly. Though the Standard & Poor's 500 index returned 13.26 percent over
> the past 10 years, if you missed the six best months in that period your
> return would have been only 8.29 percent, according to Barker French, Chief
> Investment Officer at Brinker Capital, a money management firm outside
> Philadelphia. Over the past 75 years, he says, the 62 best months returned
> about 11 percent per month; the remaining 838 months had an average monthly
> return of just 0.2 percent per month. "
>
This is meaningless. What is the comparable figure for missing the WORST
62 months? I think you would find you would have made a fortune by doing
so. Timing could just possibly have given either result but they are the
unlikely extremes.

You obviously have no training at all in statistics (or logic). There is
no reason why market timing should give the worst possible result or the
best possible one either. Timing methods will never be perfect but if
they give an advantage, however small, and enable the investor to beat
the market then they are worthwhile.

Re: Newbee

Reality a 36% factorial?

NoEd wrote:
> Off your medication?

Re: Newbee

"NoEd" <> wrote

> But then you are admitting there is no method for choosing funds that will
> have the highest returns.

I never disagreed with that. In fact I said that to you more than once.

> If you could then, risk would be irrelevant. Basically then your method is
> to select funds generally without regard to costs that have performed
> exceptionally well in the recent past. If one of the funds starts to tank
> then you quickly sell and buy another fund.

I don't know why I haven't given up on the education of NoEd a long time
ago.
If you read what I have said, you would know how silly your statement is.

> "One of the biggest arguments against market timing is that mistakes can
> be costly. Though the Standard & Poor's 500 index returned 13.26 percent
> over the past 10 years, if you missed the six best months in that period
> your return would have been only 8.29 percent, according to Barker French,
> Chief Investment Officer at Brinker Capital, a money management firm
> outside Philadelphia. Over the past 75 years, he says, the 62 best months
> returned about 11 percent per month; the remaining 838 months had an
> average monthly return of just 0.2 percent per month. "

Not more of the same "best 6 months" crap. You're hooked aren't you.

Ok, I agree, mistakes can be costly. It was a mistake to own VFINX in 2000,
2001, and 2002. Total returns for those 3 years -9.06%, -12.02%,
and -22.15%. Horrible. Why is it that peope that earn their money from
investors like you and me NEVER want to talk about missing the worst 6
months?

I have explained this to you before. The best 6 months are meaningless.
Suppose you bought VFINX in 2000 when it was $140/share. It's $114 now. What
would my return be if I missed the "best" 6 months? What would my return be
if I missed the worst 3 years?

BTW, your little story above claims that the return of the S&P500 was 13.26%
over the last 10 years. I'm sure the author cherry picked the 10 years.
Vanguard's VFINX had a 10 year average annual total return of 9.78% and they
claim the 10 year average for the index was 9.85% through 8/31/2005. That's
a big big difference.

You stay invested so you won't miss the "best 6 months". What would the
returns be is you missed the worst 3 years out of the last 10 years?

Re: Newbee

Index funds are a good choice for new investors, I have said that more than
once. But they can't just buy the S&P500 or Wilshire 5000. They have to have
a basic understanding of risk and diversification. There are so many index
funds now that it makes it easier than ever.

My biggest complaint about those that praise index funds for their low cost
is that they are almost always talking about the 2 indexes mentioned. I
never hear them talk about asset allocation. Just look at NoEd's response to
one of my posts. He is talking about the S&P500 and nothing else. If enough
people do what NoEd is doing and a starting investor visits this group and
sees all the arguments for VFINX he might just put all of his money into
this index and that would be wrong.

When people ask me for a fund to start out with I usually list Vanguard
STAR, Vanguard Wellington, Oakmark Equity & Income, and T. Rowe Price
Capital Appreciation Fund. I would never suggest that VFINX make up the
entire portfolio but that's what you get from these index fans.

"Steven L." <> wrote in message
news:wFAXe.573$
> Ed wrote:
>
>> I actually started in 1999. How to time the market: If it seems too good
>> to be true it probably is.
>
> But you're leaving out the prerequisite for that: Unless you want to stay
> in cash throughout bearish periods like 2000-2002, you need to be flexible
> enough to invest in promising markets elsewhere. You, Ed, seem to play
> ball all over the field, investing in emerging markets like India,
> closed-end funds, etc.
>
> Many folks with 401(k) plans have limited choices and can't do that.
>
> So if your only choices in your 401(k) are U.S. stock funds, while you
> might be lucky enough to find U.S. stock funds that outperform the
> indexes, you might be unlucky enough to get stuck with some real dogs
> (particularly if those are the only choices in your 401(k) plan). So for
> a newbie investor who's limited to only the U.S. stock market, index funds
> are the safest no-brainer way to play that market.
>
>
> --
> Steven D. Litvintchouk
> Email:
>
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: Newbee

Who care's.

Re: Newbee

If timing and accurate fund selection were possible then one would only
invest in those funds at those times were the return was maximized. How is
this done? If this can't be done then the best alternative is to be in the
market so that the gains of the best months, the worst months, and average
months net to the maximized gain.


"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dgmmeo$9sm$
> NoEd wrote:
> [Snip]
>> This is a very risky approach. Here is an interesting quote:
>>
>> "One of the biggest arguments against market timing is that mistakes can
>> be costly. Though the Standard & Poor's 500 index returned 13.26 percent
>> over the past 10 years, if you missed the six best months in that period
>> your return would have been only 8.29 percent, according to Barker
>> French, Chief Investment Officer at Brinker Capital, a money management
>> firm outside Philadelphia. Over the past 75 years, he says, the 62 best
>> months returned about 11 percent per month; the remaining 838 months had
>> an average monthly return of just 0.2 percent per month. "
>>
> This is meaningless. What is the comparable figure for missing the WORST
> 62 months? I think you would find you would have made a fortune by doing
> so. Timing could just possibly have given either result but they are the
> unlikely extremes.
>
> You obviously have no training at all in statistics (or logic). There is
> no reason why market timing should give the worst possible result or the
> best possible one either. Timing methods will never be perfect but if they
> give an advantage, however small, and enable the investor to beat the
> market then they are worthwhile.

Re: Newbee

I think it is funny.

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
> Who care's.
>

Re: Newbee

NoEd wrote:
> If timing and accurate fund selection were possible then one would only
> invest in those funds at those times were the return was maximized. How is
> this done? If this can't be done then the best alternative is to be in the
> market so that the gains of the best months, the worst months, and average
> months net to the maximized gain.
>
The gains don't "net to the maximized gain", whatever that is supposed
to mean.

If you are in the market the whole time you get roughly the market
return, less fees. If the market loses 16% since 2000 then you lose over
16% in almost 6 years. If the market goes nowhere in real terms for 16
years, like in 1966-1981, then you make less than zilch, over 16 years.
If that's what you want then go for it!

Perhaps you are happy to waste 16 years of your life for no return. It
has happened before. It is happening now. The fund companies are happy
though. They get their fees whatever happens, just so long as you keep
holding and never sell, no matter what.

>
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:dgmmeo$9sm$
>
>>NoEd wrote:
>>[Snip]

Re: Newbee

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> But then you are admitting there is no method for choosing funds that
>> will have the highest returns.
>
> I never disagreed with that. In fact I said that to you more than once.

So then is there a method for selecting funds that will be in the top 25%
over the next 3-5 years?

>
>> If you could then, risk would be irrelevant. Basically then your method
>> is to select funds generally without regard to costs that have performed
>> exceptionally well in the recent past. If one of the funds starts to
>> tank then you quickly sell and buy another fund.


> I don't know why I haven't given up on the education of NoEd a long time
> ago.
> If you read what I have said, you would know how silly your statement is.

Easy one. I try to keep risk at a reasonable level, lower than your SP500
index. A fund with the highest return potential also has the highest loss
potential. NoEd, this is basics 101, even you should understand this.

Investing in funds with more consistant returns, funds that most often make
money or stay close to level even in down markets is better than being in an
aggressive fund that takes a big hit.

= "Basically then your method is to select funds generally without regard to
costs that have performed
exceptionally well in the recent past."

What did I miss?

Some people say that using beta when
deciding on a fund is meaningless. I disagree. In times of uncertainess,
like now, or times when I feel the market is overvalued I want to be in low
beta funds. When the market looks cheap to me I want to be in higher beta
funds.

= "Then you simply use historic returns as your basis for selection, maybe
with
some evaluation of risk"

What did I miss?

>
>> "One of the biggest arguments against market timing is that mistakes can
>> be costly. Though the Standard & Poor's 500 index returned 13.26 percent
>> over the past 10 years, if you missed the six best months in that period
>> your return would have been only 8.29 percent, according to Barker
>> French, Chief Investment Officer at Brinker Capital, a money management
>> firm outside Philadelphia. Over the past 75 years, he says, the 62 best
>> months returned about 11 percent per month; the remaining 838 months had
>> an average monthly return of just 0.2 percent per month. "
>
> Not more of the same "best 6 months" crap. You're hooked aren't you.

Its simple math. Run the numbers yourself. Do you think someone would
have made 13.26 percent even if they were not in the 62 best months?

>
> Ok, I agree, mistakes can be costly. It was a mistake to own VFINX in
> 2000, 2001, and 2002. Total returns for those 3 years -9.06%, -12.02%,
> and -22.15%. Horrible.

Can you time the market? How? Losses are always bad. You need to prove
you can time the market and select the best funds.

Why is it that peope that earn their money from
> investors like you and me NEVER want to talk about missing the worst 6
> months?

Its the same question. If you can time the market to aviod the worst 62
months then you should be able to time the market to be in the market only
in the best X number of months. You should be able to choose the "X."


>
> I have explained this to you before. The best 6 months are meaningless.
> Suppose you bought VFINX in 2000 when it was $140/share. It's $114 now.
> What would my return be if I missed the "best" 6 months? What would my
> return be if I missed the worst 3 years?

Same response as above just change months to years.
>
> BTW, your little story above claims that the return of the S&P500 was
> 13.26% over the last 10 years. I'm sure the author cherry picked the 10
> years. Vanguard's VFINX had a 10 year average annual total return of 9.78%
> and they claim the 10 year average for the index was 9.85% through
> 8/31/2005. That's a big big difference.

I imagine you could randomly select any ten year period and come up with
very similar results.



>
> You stay invested so you won't miss the "best 6 months". What would the
> returns be is you missed the worst 3 years out of the last 10 years?
>
>

Re: Newbee

Reality's the other 36%?

NoEd wrote:
> Off your medication?

Re: Newbee

"NoEd" <> wrote

> So then is there a method for selecting funds that will be in the top 25%
> over the next 3-5 years?

I'm not looking for one. What I want is a fund with lower relative risk than
the market. I will adjust my portfolio over the next 3-5 years as I feel is
needed. My goal is to avoid years like the 3 consecutive down years that you
experienced with VFINX.

> What did I miss?

You missed your money for 3 years.

> = "Then you simply use historic returns as your basis for selection, maybe
> with
> some evaluation of risk"

I don't ignore historic returns but risk is more important to me.

> What did I miss?

You missed your money for 3 years.

>> Ok, I agree, mistakes can be costly. It was a mistake to own VFINX in
>> 2000, 2001, and 2002. Total returns for those 3 years -9.06%, -12.02%,
>> and -22.15%. Horrible.

> Can you time the market? How? Losses are always bad. You need to prove
> you can time the market and select the best funds.

I don't have to prove anything. You are not required to accept anything I
say as truth.
I have told you more than once already why I started selling stock funds in
1999. I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself.

Re: Newbee

"NoEd" <> wrote

> If timing and accurate fund selection were possible then one would only
> invest in those funds at those times were the return was maximized.

Not true.

In times of uncertainty you should seek to minimize risk. For example, today
the S&P500 was down 56 basis points. My funds were down 23 basis points. I
have 8 funds. 3 were up today and 5 were down. I watch these funds pretty
carefully. If I see a fund that is behaving well in this market I may sell
shares of one that isn't doing quite as well and use the money to buy more
shares of the funds that are holding their own. This has nothing to do with
picking the top fund going forward. It has everything to do with trying to
match the current environment with a reasonable level of risk. If my fund
makes nothing this year and yours loses 10%, who's ahead?

My largest fund is T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation. I have owned it since
1991 and it has never had a down year since I started buying shares. It's
best year since inception was +25.47% in 2003. It's worst year was -1.25% in
1990. VFINX beat this fund in 2003 and it has had other years where it did
much better as well. 1990 was this funds only down year out of 18 years.

I can recall being asked why I owned this "dog" back in the late 1990's.
When everyone was snapping up shares of tech funds and internet funds. My
reply was "don't worry, your funds will catch down to mine". Didn't they
ever, those 'investors' are still wondering what hit them.

2000, VFINX -9.06%, PRWCX +22.17%
2001, VFINX -12.02% PRWCX +10.06%
2002, VFINX -22.15% PRWCX +0.54%

Are you getting the picture now?
It isn't about picking the best fund for 2006, it's about not losing money.

Re: Newbee

Steven,

Given you prognostication, what are you going to do and why?

"Steven L." <> wrote in message
news:cxAXe.268$
> David Wilkinson wrote:
>
>> But of course you are quite right to follow a method that worked up to
>> year 2000 but not since. It need some people to make losses so others can
>> make gains.
>
> Actually, "buy and hold" of a clone of the S&P 500 didn't work so good in
> the 1970's either.
>
> I believe the period 2000-2012 is going to resemble the period 1970-1982,
> in the sense that returns of the S&P 500 thru this decade are going to be
> disappointing.
>
> Now if you're a young newbie planning to hold your funds for 30 more
> years, you can just dollar-cost-average your way thru such disappointing
> periods.
>
> But at my age and state of health, I don't have 30 more years.
>
>
> --
> Steven D. Litvintchouk
> Email:
>
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: Newbee

> "NoEd" <> wrote

>> The good news is that you have your facts wrong again. The S&P 500 has
>> outperformed 64.39% of the large blend funds over the last 5 years.

It (VFINX) ranked 452 out of 929 large blend funds through 8/31/2005.
% rank in category 48.65%


Through 9/20/2005, it came in at 50%, it's getting worse.


5 year annualized returns -1.93%
% rank in category 50%

50% of large cap blend funds beat it, higher expenses and all.

Vanguard Prime Money Market averaged 2.34% for the five years ended
8/31/2005.

What would you know about facts?
Where did you get your bogus information?

Re: Newbee

Ed. Could you both be right? VFINX will probably do slightly worse than
the S&P500 due to expenses and tracking error so the S&P may beat more
funds than VFINX.

Of course you can buy VFINX but not the S&P500 (unless it is available
exactly with no expenses in ETF form), so the true comparison with other
funds is how well VFINX does.

Ed wrote:
>>"NoEd" <> wrote
>
>
>>>The good news is that you have your facts wrong again. The S&P 500 has
>>>outperformed 64.39% of the large blend funds over the last 5 years.
>
>
> It (VFINX) ranked 452 out of 929 large blend funds through 8/31/2005.
> % rank in category 48.65%
>
>
> Through 9/20/2005, it came in at 50%, it's getting worse.
>
>
> 5 year annualized returns -1.93%
> % rank in category 50%
>
> 50% of large cap blend funds beat it, higher expenses and all.
>
> Vanguard Prime Money Market averaged 2.34% for the five years ended
> 8/31/2005.
>
> What would you know about facts?
> Where did you get your bogus information?
>
>

Re: Newbee

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

> Ed. Could you both be right?

No, we can't both be right. NoEd is wrong.
David, these are Vanguard's figures:
The fund averaged -2.82% for the 5 yrs ended 8/31/05.
The index averaged -2.71% for the same period.

> VFINX will probably do slightly worse than the S&P500 due to expenses and
> tracking error so the S&P may beat more funds than VFINX.

There are actually time periods when the fund outperforms the idex.

> Of course you can buy VFINX but not the S&P500 (unless it is available
> exactly with no expenses in ETF form), so the true comparison with other
> funds is how well VFINX does.

Exactly.

NoEd is claiming that the fund beat 64.39% of funds in the category.
Morningstar says it's 50%. That's not a small difference.



NoEd also claims:
"Though the Standard & Poor's 500 index returned 13.26 percent
over the past 10 years".

Vanguard says it was 9.78% for the fund and 9.85% for the index over the 10
years ended 8/31/2005.

Re: Newbee

Ed wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote
>
>
>>Ed. Could you both be right?
>
>
> No, we can't both be right. NoEd is wrong.
> David, these are Vanguard's figures:
> The fund averaged -2.82% for the 5 yrs ended 8/31/05.
> The index averaged -2.71% for the same period.
>
>
>>VFINX will probably do slightly worse than the S&P500 due to expenses and
>>tracking error so the S&P may beat more funds than VFINX.
>
>
> There are actually time periods when the fund outperforms the idex.
>
>
>>Of course you can buy VFINX but not the S&P500 (unless it is available
>>exactly with no expenses in ETF form), so the true comparison with other
>>funds is how well VFINX does.
>
>
> Exactly.
>
> NoEd is claiming that the fund beat 64.39% of funds in the category.
> Morningstar says it's 50%. That's not a small difference.
>
>
>
> NoEd also claims:
> "Though the Standard & Poor's 500 index returned 13.26 percent
> over the past 10 years".
>
> Vanguard says it was 9.78% for the fund and 9.85% for the index over the 10
> years ended 8/31/2005.
>
>
>
Ed. I don't have the 10 years to 8/31/2005 as my data provider only
seems to cover the 10 years from the most recent entry. However it can't
be much different averaged annually.

I have S&P500 figures of 584.2 on 9/19/95 and 1231.02 on 9/19/05. This
gives a ratio of 1231.02/584.2 = 2.10719. Averaged over 10 years this
gives 2.10719^0.1-1 = 7.74% which is about 2% less than the Vanguard
figures. Presumably they are giving total return and there is about 2%
annual dividend in there too.

NoEd's figure of 13.26% over 10 year looks ridiculous, but no surprises
there!

I can do 5 years to 8/31/05. The S&P500 goes from 1517.68 on 8/31/00 to
1220.33 on 8/31/05 for a ratio of 0.80408, an annual return of
0.80408^0.2-1 = -4.27% Again this is about 2% less than Vanguard's
figures, presumably due to a dividend.

Re: Newbee

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

> Ed. I don't have the 10 years to 8/31/2005 as my data provider only seems
> to cover the 10 years from the most recent entry. However it can't be much
> different averaged annually.
>
> I have S&P500 figures of 584.2 on 9/19/95 and 1231.02 on 9/19/05. This
> gives a ratio of 1231.02/584.2 = 2.10719. Averaged over 10 years this
> gives 2.10719^0.1-1 = 7.74% which is about 2% less than the Vanguard
> figures. Presumably they are giving total return and there is about 2%
> annual dividend in there too.

Yes, dividends reinvested.

> NoEd's figure of 13.26% over 10 year looks ridiculous, but no surprises
> there!

That's why I cringe when he says someone isn't being truthful.

Re: Newbee

David Wilkinson wrote:
> NoEd wrote:

> > "...according to Barker French, Chief Investment Officer
> > at Brinker Capital, a money management firm outside
> > Philadelphia. Over the past 75 years, he says, the 62
> > best months returned about 11 percent per month; the
> > remaining 838 months had an average monthly return of
> > just 0.2 percent per month. "

> This is meaningless. What is the comparable figure for missing the WORST
> 62 months? I think you would find you would have made a fortune by doing
> so. Timing could just possibly have given either result but they are the
> unlikely extremes.

What are the odds of the typical timing system missing the best months
verses missing the worst months?

Re: Newbee

"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote

> What are the odds of the typical timing system missing the best months
> verses missing the worst months?

The point is that peple that sell funds never talk about missing the worst 6
months, they only talk about missing the best 6 months. They want you to
stay invested so they have a steady stream of money flowing into their
wallets.

Let's use the Nasdaq index as an example. Let's say you inhereted $500,000
from a rich grandmother. It's December 21, 1999 and this index is on fire,
has been for a long time.
You invest in the index at 3,798 and buy 131.648 'shares'.

March 1, 2000 the index is 4,484 and you're feeling great. (portfolio now
worth $590,310)
March 10, it's 5,049 this is wonderful. (portfolio now worth $664,690
fabulous)
Won't be long until you have $1million.
Stay invested so you won't miss those 6 best weeks, months, days, hours each
year, you decide.

It's February 3, 2003 and your shares are worth $168,773 at Nasdaq index
1,282. This can be ture. Surely there were some good 6 somethings in there
and I know I didn't miss them.

Whew, not to worry, it's September 21, 2005 and yourtfolio is doing much
better. It's all the way back up to $277,382 and you are so glad you
listened to that guy at the fund outfit.

You will never ever see that guy that's selling funds use my example because
then they wouldn't be able to sell any funds.

How much did being invested for the best 6 anything help you over this
period of 5 years, 9 months, and 1 day?

Re: Newbee

A good, typical timing system will catch the best of all worlds. It is tuned
to specific areas. One that does well with Small Cap funds will not do well
with Real Estate. First you must pick your target fund, then find the timing
system that works well with it.--

Happy Guy
-
>
> "larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote
>
>> What are the odds of the typical timing system missing the best months
>> verses missing the worst months?

Re: Newbee

"happy-guy" <> wrote in message
news:AYlYe.29226$
> A good, typical timing system will catch the best of all worlds. It is
tuned
> to specific areas. One that does well with Small Cap funds will not do
well
> with Real Estate. First you must pick your target fund, then find the
timing
> system that works well with it.--
>
> Happy Guy

Oh oh. Here we go again.

-herb

Re: Newbee

larry moe 'n curly wrote:
> David Wilkinson wrote:
>
>>NoEd wrote:
>
>
>>>"...according to Barker French, Chief Investment Officer
>>>at Brinker Capital, a money management firm outside
>>>Philadelphia. Over the past 75 years, he says, the 62
>>>best months returned about 11 percent per month; the
>>>remaining 838 months had an average monthly return of
>>>just 0.2 percent per month. "
>
>
>>This is meaningless. What is the comparable figure for missing the WORST
>>62 months? I think you would find you would have made a fortune by doing
>>so. Timing could just possibly have given either result but they are the
>>unlikely extremes.
>
>
> What are the odds of the typical timing system missing the best months
> verses missing the worst months?
>
Both have a low probability.

Timing does not have to be perfect, just better than B&H by any margin.

Re: Newbee

I've been watching the mimfchal2005 results with great interest.

The top spot is held by a stock investor (or so I've been told). The second
spot is held by a mutual fund timer. The rest are apparently a mix.

So, currently, the top performer using mutual funds only (this is a mutual
fund board, right?), is a timer.

I'm not sure, but I don't think I saw your name on the list.

Happy Guy
-
"Herb" <>
> Oh oh. Here we go again.
>
> -herb
>
>

Re: Newbee

"happy-guy" <> wrote in message
news:0muYe.29249$
> I've been watching the mimfchal2005 results with great interest.
>
> The top spot is held by a stock investor (or so I've been told). The
second
> spot is held by a mutual fund timer. The rest are apparently a mix.
>
> So, currently, the top performer using mutual funds only (this is a mutual
> fund board, right?), is a timer.
>
> I'm not sure, but I don't think I saw your name on the list.
>
> Happy Guy
> -

Was the bottom of the list a timer as well? I'm not really following it
since it has little to do with mutual funds.

-herb
> "Herb" <> wrote in message
news:zHqYe.292181$>
> > Oh oh. Here we go again.
> >
> > -herb
> >
> >
>
>

Re: Newbee

System - what order most portends to a proposed model, the market
ostensibly embodies, while all else exists in insolvency; For so long
as no emperical system, by defination, exists, that an elemental model
has to coincide over a finite constraint time sustains. I fear such a
system shan't help on such a day two trade towers collapse - everybody
eats it. Which is not to say an ensuing contingence may resultantly
emerge, such as makings of a novel fund catagory exegesis, a model
whereby its directors propose a play off from sentiment accompaning
vogue cataclysmic weather events. Phenomena we see dynamically
affecting market is supplementary an exponential of to-day. Not so long
ago that simply was not so.

happy-guy wrote:
> A good, typical timing system will catch the best of all worlds. It is tuned
> to specific areas. One that does well with Small Cap funds will not do well
> with Real Estate. First you must pick your target fund, then find the timing
> system that works well with it.--

Re: Newbee

Flasherly wrote:
> System - what order most portends to a proposed model, the market
> ostensibly embodies, while all else exists in insolvency; For so long
> as no emperical system, by defination, exists, that an elemental model
> has to coincide over a finite constraint time sustains. I fear such a
> system shan't help on such a day two trade towers collapse - everybody
> eats it. Which is not to say an ensuing contingence may resultantly
> emerge, such as makings of a novel fund catagory exegesis, a model
> whereby its directors propose a play off from sentiment accompaning
> vogue cataclysmic weather events. Phenomena we see dynamically
> affecting market is supplementary an exponential of to-day. Not so long
> ago that simply was not so.
>
This is pure gibberish Flashman. Can't you write in English so we can
understand it?

> happy-guy wrote:
>
>>A good, typical timing system will catch the best of all worlds. It is tuned
>>to specific areas. One that does well with Small Cap funds will not do well
>>with Real Estate. First you must pick your target fund, then find the timing
>>system that works well with it.--
>
>

Re: Newbee

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

> This is pure gibberish Flashman. Can't you write in English so we can
> understand it?

I think he has something to say but I don't want to have to work at it to
figure out what it is. For this reason I usually skip over his posts. I'll
get my puzzles in the daily newspaper thanks!

Re: Newbee

You employ the park that, on any given day, you can tout as a working
model, because you have correctly assumed worthwhile profits by the
final inning; whereas you take another, different system for another
time frame to construct profits the former lacks. If you won't play,
Dave, you'll be declared, de facto, insolvent. You needn't focus too
heavily on the two towers conception or hedge funds for the hurricane
challenged, though keep in mind they're sustainable curveballs; and
though switch hitting isn't exactly an art, it does require a certain
ambidextrous flair. How we doing, so far? Great - It's extra credit
time: For one base hit, what best encapsulates the concept 'phonomena'
and substitute the inimitable synonym. Take your time, Dave, this
isn't rocket science and no one is pushing anyone.

David Wilkinson wrote:
> Flasherly wrote:
> > System . . .
> >
> This is pure gibberish Flashman. Can't you write in English so we can
> understand it?

Re: Newbee

Flasherly wrote:
> You employ the park that, on any given day, you can tout as a working
> model, because you have correctly assumed worthwhile profits by the
> final inning; whereas you take another, different system for another
> time frame to construct profits the former lacks. If you won't play,
> Dave, you'll be declared, de facto, insolvent. You needn't focus too
> heavily on the two towers conception or hedge funds for the hurricane
> challenged, though keep in mind they're sustainable curveballs; and
> though switch hitting isn't exactly an art, it does require a certain
> ambidextrous flair. How we doing, so far? Great - It's extra credit
> time: For one base hit, what best encapsulates the concept 'phonomena'
> and substitute the inimitable synonym. Take your time, Dave, this
> isn't rocket science and no one is pushing anyone.
>
> David Wilkinson wrote:
>
>>Flasherly wrote:
>>
>>>System . . .
>>>
>>
>>This is pure gibberish Flashman. Can't you write in English so we can
>>understand it?
>
>
Nope. Still rubbish!

Back to school with you! Come back when you have a GCSE in English at A
or B level, at the very least.

Re: Newbee

You shan't be left wandering for want of impeccable credentials, I
assure you, my dear fellow.

David Wilkinson wrote:
> Back to school with you! Come back when you have a GCSE in English at A
> or B level, at the very least.

Re: Newbee

It's to the point I abhor newspapers, rather, I'd sooner a Oxford- or
Cambridge-educated man, and Marx for puzzles. Newspaper - A rag to
cover the rise of capitalistic labor classes, from gin-sodden
suffregettes to discretionary leisure not formerly afforded the
affected. Related topics include religious contenance at the inception
of football, W. Strunk - Elements of Style, and knowledge on a
10th-grade bell curve.

Ed wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote
> I'll get my puzzles in the daily newspaper thanks!

Re: Newbee

This is the wrong group for sophomoric pretense. Which is one element that
makes your writing really, really bad. Another element that condemns your
posts to the proverbial (iconic) circular filing cabinet is the dearth of
any substantive financial advice.

You write in the hope that people are impressed by style. Go to one of the
literary newsgroups, where you're also not up to the challenge but at least
will be among people who write far better.

Oxford people et al. don't hang on Usenet, in general, because they have
trust funds to support them. The rest of us are trying to make a living.

"Flasherly" <> wrote
> It's to the point I abhor newspapers, rather, I'd sooner a Oxford- or
> Cambridge-educated man, and Marx for puzzles. Newspaper - A rag to
> cover the rise of capitalistic labor classes, from gin-sodden
> suffregettes to discretionary leisure not formerly afforded the
> affected. Related topics include religious contenance at the inception
> of football, W. Strunk - Elements of Style, and knowledge on a
> 10th-grade bell curve.
>
> Ed wrote:
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote
> > I'll get my puzzles in the daily newspaper thanks!

Re: Newbee

First off, a small coiteire of invested principals does not run the
gamut of institutional advice. Second, where my motives lead are
conjecturally no different from such reasoning any investor present
wishes to ascribe; since I have etched some substantive means through
investing, it would an impingement upon these trials to deny what
tribulations I, nonetheless, shall proscribe as sound investment
advice. It will, henceforth, be within means you may or not attest,
though you shall, no less, grant me the determinate will to make a
better judgement as I see fit. And, lastly, [in general] any formal
outlay from instutional resources of academic origin have, in general,
been quashed since the Clinton years, when the internet acceeded from
purvey to academians and DOD, to incorporate sponsorship for broader
consumption an efficent market system exacts.

Elle wrote:
> This is the wrong group for sophomoric pretense. Which is one element that
> makes your writing really, really bad. Another element that condemns your
> posts to the proverbial (iconic) circular filing cabinet is the dearth of
> any substantive financial advice.
>
> You write in the hope that people are impressed by style. Go to one of the
> literary newsgroups, where you're also not up to the challenge but at least
> will be among people who write far better.
>
> Oxford people et al. don't hang on Usenet, in general, because they have
> trust funds to support them. The rest of us are trying to make a living.

Re: Newbee

This is a pretty good joke, anyway.

"Flasherly" <> wrote
> First off, a small coiteire of invested principals does not run the
> gamut of institutional advice. Second, where my motives lead are
> conjecturally no different from such reasoning any investor present
> wishes to ascribe; since I have etched some substantive means through
> investing, it would an impingement upon these trials to deny what
> tribulations I, nonetheless, shall proscribe as sound investment
> advice. It will, henceforth, be within means you may or not attest,
> though you shall, no less, grant me the determinate will to make a
> better judgement as I see fit. And, lastly, [in general] any formal
> outlay from instutional resources of academic origin have, in general,
> been quashed since the Clinton years, when the internet acceeded from
> purvey to academians and DOD, to incorporate sponsorship for broader
> consumption an efficent market system exacts.
>
> Elle wrote:
> > This is the wrong group for sophomoric pretense. Which is one element
that
> > makes your writing really, really bad. Another element that condemns
your
> > posts to the proverbial (iconic) circular filing cabinet is the dearth
of
> > any substantive financial advice.
> >
> > You write in the hope that people are impressed by style. Go to one of
the
> > literary newsgroups, where you're also not up to the challenge but at
least
> > will be among people who write far better.
> >
> > Oxford people et al. don't hang on Usenet, in general, because they have
> > trust funds to support them. The rest of us are trying to make a living.
>

Re: Newbee

Humor is good, thank you. One of the best practical jokes I did hear
when I audited various writers and journalists was to get laid. [Hey!,
hey! - They aren't paying my salary, either. <winks>]

Elle wrote:
> This is a pretty good joke, anyway.

Re: Newbee

wrote:
> I am trying to get information about investing in Mutual Funds. No idea
> where to start. Any help would be great.
>
> Dave
>
Dave,

Go out and pick up a copy of Mutual Funds for Dummies. Don't take
offense, it's a very good book and well worth the money. Also, most of
the major fund families have on their websites, something like Investing
101. Examples are www.vanguard.com, www.troweprice.com, www.fidelity.com

best,

rono