88 is the best you can do?

just went down the list and noticed 88 posts under the topic of, "Index
vs. Managed funds". I guess Ed has been winning or maybe people are
getting smarter. memory is a little fuzzy, but seems like in 2000, that
same old, tired argument got like 140 posts.
Index funds, in the form of the tradeable, ETF can be used for securing
a position in an index/sector. nice vehicles, glad they got them up and
running before they shut down the traders ability to jump in and out of
openend funds. managed funds, well, your side betting the manager, is he
hot, on a roll? have a track record for some insight/brilliance? better
find one that works cause now your stuck with the deal for 90/180 days,
depending on fund and/or broker.
the other high count argument that used to clutter up this group was
"Active vs. Asleep" or "trader vs. buy&hold investor". that was always
fun(funny). the argument is, of course, ridiculous. remember the old
saying, "investor know thy self". different people, personalities, time
restraints--hey, you got to do the best you can do......(your own
thing..) momentum vs. value? yeah, that's pretty wore out too.
have a good weekend. Monday ought to be a hoot, or maybe a snooze.

maybe the argument is old but environment is new?

Maybe tho it seems like the same old argument, in some respects it may have
new or different perspectives because the financial environment is changing.
As you said, the more strict requirments on mutual fund trading, etc.

I mean, like, even investors who were not inclined to index funds must
realize there is now a place for ETFs. So, isn't that a vote for index that
wasn't there before?

Maybe the old argument is newer than it appears on the surface.

Just a thought. I am not literate in this area nor have the time to get in
this debate. I'll leave that to the generals. I'm just a foot soldier
trying to stay alive and maybe win a medal.

I can't figure out whether I should have bought on last week's downswing.
Guess next week will tell me.

"G3" <> wrote in message
news:
> just went down the list and noticed 88 posts under the topic of, "Index
> vs. Managed funds". I guess Ed has been winning or maybe people are
> getting smarter. memory is a little fuzzy, but seems like in 2000, that
> same old, tired argument got like 140 posts.
> Index funds, in the form of the tradeable, ETF can be used for securing
> a position in an index/sector. nice vehicles, glad they got them up and
> running before they shut down the traders ability to jump in and out of
> openend funds. managed funds, well, your side betting the manager, is he
> hot, on a roll? have a track record for some insight/brilliance? better
> find one that works cause now your stuck with the deal for 90/180 days,
> depending on fund and/or broker.
> the other high count argument that used to clutter up this group was
> "Active vs. Asleep" or "trader vs. buy&hold investor". that was always
> fun(funny). the argument is, of course, ridiculous. remember the old
> saying, "investor know thy self". different people, personalities, time
> restraints--hey, you got to do the best you can do......(your own
> thing..) momentum vs. value? yeah, that's pretty wore out too.
> have a good weekend. Monday ought to be a hoot, or maybe a snooze.

Re: maybe the argument is old but environment is new?

How does a no-load index fund differ from an ETF, from the investors
viewpoint, assuming you can switch the index fund cash into and out of a
money market fund as often as you like?

"Ruffian" <> wrote in message
news:slrAf.10820$
> Maybe tho it seems like the same old argument, in some respects it may
> have
> new or different perspectives because the financial environment is
> changing.
> As you said, the more strict requirments on mutual fund trading, etc.
>
> I mean, like, even investors who were not inclined to index funds must
> realize there is now a place for ETFs. So, isn't that a vote for index
> that
> wasn't there before?
>
> Maybe the old argument is newer than it appears on the surface.
>
> Just a thought. I am not literate in this area nor have the time to get
> in
> this debate. I'll leave that to the generals. I'm just a foot soldier
> trying to stay alive and maybe win a medal.
>
> I can't figure out whether I should have bought on last week's downswing.
> Guess next week will tell me.
>
> "G3" <> wrote in message
> news:
>> just went down the list and noticed 88 posts under the topic of, "Index
>> vs. Managed funds". I guess Ed has been winning or maybe people are
>> getting smarter. memory is a little fuzzy, but seems like in 2000, that
>> same old, tired argument got like 140 posts.
>> Index funds, in the form of the tradeable, ETF can be used for securing
>> a position in an index/sector. nice vehicles, glad they got them up and
>> running before they shut down the traders ability to jump in and out of
>> openend funds. managed funds, well, your side betting the manager, is he
>> hot, on a roll? have a track record for some insight/brilliance? better
>> find one that works cause now your stuck with the deal for 90/180 days,
>> depending on fund and/or broker.
>> the other high count argument that used to clutter up this group was
>> "Active vs. Asleep" or "trader vs. buy&hold investor". that was always
>> fun(funny). the argument is, of course, ridiculous. remember the old
>> saying, "investor know thy self". different people, personalities, time
>> restraints--hey, you got to do the best you can do......(your own
>> thing..) momentum vs. value? yeah, that's pretty wore out too.
>> have a good weekend. Monday ought to be a hoot, or maybe a snooze.
>
>

Re: maybe the argument is old but environment is new?

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

> How does a no-load index fund differ from an ETF, from the investors
> viewpoint, assuming you can switch the index fund cash into and out of a
> money market fund as often as you like?

Most no-load index funds have exchange restrictions and some have early
redemption fees.
You can't switch whenever you want to, you'll get the boot. There are no
such restrictions with ETF's.

Re: maybe the argument is old but environment is new?

Ah. We don't seem to have that restriction over here in the UK. I have
switched between HSBC no-load index funds and money market with no costs and
no complaints. Fidelity let me do it too but I seem to remember they charged
me 0.25%

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote
>
>> How does a no-load index fund differ from an ETF, from the investors
>> viewpoint, assuming you can switch the index fund cash into and out of a
>> money market fund as often as you like?
>
> Most no-load index funds have exchange restrictions and some have early
> redemption fees.
> You can't switch whenever you want to, you'll get the boot. There are no
> such restrictions with ETF's.
>

Re: maybe the argument is old but environment is new?

In article <>,
"Ed" <> wrote:

> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote
>
> > How does a no-load index fund differ from an ETF, from the investors
> > viewpoint, assuming you can switch the index fund cash into and out of a
> > money market fund as often as you like?
>
> Most no-load index funds have exchange restrictions and some have early
> redemption fees.
> You can't switch whenever you want to, you'll get the boot. There are no
> such restrictions with ETF's.

back before the shxt hit the fan, openend mut funds could be traded thru
a broker, using the brokers list of NTF(no transfer fee), no ERF(early
redemption fee), trade for free. guys like rono were doing stuff like
"datelining"(using international funds to follow a bull runup around the
world). so maybe, you'd only hold a fund for 24 hours. I had some
success at trading in and out of a fund like CGMFX. well, the hedge
funds got in on trading openenders and burnt it out--new SEC rules, new
rules from brokers. I use Scottrade and they charge 1% if you sell a
fund before 180 days.
what's the deal on trading funds in the UK? you have any brokers like
scottrade--$7 a trade? looks like a lot of ETF's are available to you.
the main reason for betting on an index, is that it has lower drawdown
than a specific stock, giving us little guys a bit more time to agonize,
before taking action. can you invest in Canada?

Re: maybe the argument is old but environment is new?

David Wilkinson wrote:
>
> How does a no-load index fund differ from an ETF, from the investors
> viewpoint, assuming you can switch the index fund cash into and out of
> a money market fund as often as you like?

Given this hypothesis (which is valid for some open end index funds),
there are still differences. Some of which come to mind are:

Cost structure: Open end funds incur additional overhead if they allow
rapid trading (keeping extra cash around, or trading commissions as they
buy and sell the underlying securities). They pass this cost on in the
form of higher expenses (e.g. ProFunds Bull, Investor Class, has an
annual expense ratio of 1.44%, compared with the typical S&P 500 index
fund cost of under 20 basis points, let alone ETF fees).

You incur brokerage commissions whenever you buy/sell ETFs (though one
can reduce this, e.g. at WellsTrade, part of Wells Fargo, the first 50
trades per year are free if you keep $250K with them). There is also a
bid/ask spread on ETFs, as on any exchange traded security, that adds to
the cost of purchase/sale.

If you are going to trade frequently, you incur higher costs one way
(brokerage fees) or another (higher fund expense ratios). If you are
going to buy periodically, the open end funds are cheaper (though some
brokers mitigate this by charging very low commissions, circa $3-4 for
automatic investment plans using ETFs).

Taxes: Differences here are overrated, though in theory gains realized
by the ETF are passed through to the institutions buying/selling
"creation units", thus reducing the virtually nonexistent taxes of the
index fund to investors who buy existing shares through brokers.

Doesn't matter much for traders, who don't hold on long enough to incur
anything but short term gains/losses, but is a theoretical concern for
longer term investors.

Variety: Currently, one has a choice of much narrowly focused ETFs than
index funds. Gives you the ability to treat the ETFs as individual
stocks and manage your portfolio as you would a portfolio of stocks.

Accessibility: If I want to buy a Vanguard index fund at my broker (not
Vanguard), I either pay a relatively high fee for the service, or pay a
typically lower stock commission to buy the same (not equivalent) fund
in its ETF shareclass form. As above, WellsTrade is an exception - it
charges the same commissions for trading non-NTF funds and stocks.




--
Mark Freeland

Re: maybe the argument is old but environment is new?

"G3" <> wrote in message
news:
> In article <>,
> "Ed" <> wrote:
>
>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote
>>
>> > How does a no-load index fund differ from an ETF, from the investors
>> > viewpoint, assuming you can switch the index fund cash into and out of
>> > a
>> > money market fund as often as you like?
>>
>> Most no-load index funds have exchange restrictions and some have early
>> redemption fees.
>> You can't switch whenever you want to, you'll get the boot. There are no
>> such restrictions with ETF's.
>
> back before the shxt hit the fan, openend mut funds could be traded thru
> a broker, using the brokers list of NTF(no transfer fee), no ERF(early
> redemption fee), trade for free. guys like rono were doing stuff like
> "datelining"(using international funds to follow a bull runup around the
> world). so maybe, you'd only hold a fund for 24 hours. I had some
> success at trading in and out of a fund like CGMFX. well, the hedge
> funds got in on trading openenders and burnt it out--new SEC rules, new
> rules from brokers. I use Scottrade and they charge 1% if you sell a
> fund before 180 days.
> what's the deal on trading funds in the UK? you have any brokers like
> scottrade--$7 a trade? looks like a lot of ETF's are available to you.
> the main reason for betting on an index, is that it has lower drawdown
> than a specific stock, giving us little guys a bit more time to agonize,
> before taking action. can you invest in Canada?

In the UK there are very few no-load funds, mainly index funds and not all
of those. The other funds charge about a 5.5% to 6% spread between buy and
sell but you can deal in most of them through what are called Fund
Supermarkets, through which the spread is often, but not always, about 1.5%.
Within a fund family you can switch between funds either for nothing or for
a small fee, like 0.25%.

You can deal in iShares or ETFs in the UK, but I have not done so. I don't
know about Canada but you can deal in most overseas stocks through brokers,
but probably as ADRs or equivalents. Obviously I don't know much about this,
not having done it. If I want to invest in America or Europe, say, I
generally buy a no-load Index fund for that country.

Re: maybe the argument is old but environment is new?

In article <>
wrote:


> You incur brokerage commissions whenever you buy/sell ETFs (though one
> can reduce this, e.g. at WellsTrade, part of Wells Fargo, the first 50
> trades per year are free if you keep $250K with them). There is also a
> bid/ask spread on ETFs, as on any exchange traded security, that adds to
> the cost of purchase/sale.

let me guess, you were with Strong? Strong got busted for being a little
to "creative", got bought out by WellsFargo. hey, long live Dick Strong!
(wish he still put out a newsletter.)

Re: maybe the argument is old but environment is new?

In article <dqtoeh$ch4$>,
"David Wilkinson" <> wrote:

the reason I mentioned Canada, well, take a look at this, explains it
better than I can. some interesting co.'s, business models, under newer
Canadian laws. some are good div. payers.


meout=60

Re: maybe the argument is old but environment is new?

Nope. I am not going to register online with some company and get spam from
them for evermore. If you want me to know about Canada then you will have to
tell me.

"G3" <> wrote in message
news:
> In article <dqtoeh$ch4$>,
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote:
>
> the reason I mentioned Canada, well, take a look at this, explains it
> better than I can. some interesting co.'s, business models, under newer
> Canadian laws. some are good div. payers.
>
>
> meout=60

Re: maybe the argument is old but environment is new?

David, this is a great site for income investors. I'm registered and have
never received a single piece of spam from them.


"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

> Nope. I am not going to register online with some company and get spam
> from them for evermore. If you want me to know about Canada then you will
> have to tell me.

>>

Re: maybe the argument is old but environment is new?

OK, Ed, but there is no way I am going to buy Canadian stocks from the UK.
There are 2,000 or more UK companies if I want stocks and there are funds
investing all over the world if I want to invest abroad. For Canada, the
choice is limited, but Sun Life of Canada have a couple of income funds if I
want to go that way, but I have a UK income fund already so probably not.

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
> David, this is a great site for income investors. I'm registered and have
> never received a single piece of spam from them.
>
>
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote
>
>> Nope. I am not going to register online with some company and get spam
>> from them for evermore. If you want me to know about Canada then you will
>> have to tell me.
>
>>>
>
>

Re: maybe the argument is old but environment is new?

In article <dqua80$va3$>,
"David Wilkinson" <> wrote:

> OK, Ed, but there is no way I am going to buy Canadian stocks from the UK.
> There are 2,000 or more UK companies if I want stocks and there are funds
> investing all over the world if I want to invest abroad. For Canada, the
> choice is limited, but Sun Life of Canada have a couple of income funds if I
> want to go that way, but I have a UK income fund already so probably not.
>
> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:
> > David, this is a great site for income investors. I'm registered and have
> > never received a single piece of spam from them.
> >
> >
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote
> >
> >> Nope. I am not going to register online with some company and get spam
> >> from them for evermore. If you want me to know about Canada then you will
> >> have to tell me.
> >
> >>>
> >
> >

sorry about that, guess I've been registered on quantum for so long I
forgot. common practice in the US is to get a free email address thru
yahoo or hotmail, then if you register on a site that does sell you out,
all the spam ends up "over there". anyway, for somebody who has access
and the right tax situation, some of these "royalty trusts" can be a
good product. here in the US, there are a number of oil/energy related
"trusts". also a new breed of company, the Equity Income Hybrid
Securities (EIHSs)--- see,
B & G Foods Holding Corp. (BGF)
Centerplate, Inc. (CVP)
Coinmach Service Corp. (DRY)
Otelco Inc. (OTT)

Re: maybe the argument is old but environment is new?

G3 wrote:
>
> In article <>
> wrote:
>
>
> > You incur brokerage commissions whenever you buy/sell ETFs (though
> > one can reduce this, e.g. at WellsTrade, part of Wells Fargo, the
> > first 50 trades per year are free if you keep $250K with them).
> > There is also a bid/ask spread on ETFs, as on any exchange traded
> > security, that adds to the cost of purchase/sale.
>
> let me guess, you were with Strong? Strong got busted for being a
> little to "creative", got bought out by WellsFargo. hey, long live
> Dick Strong!
> (wish he still put out a newsletter.)

No cigar.

I'm not a customer of Wells Fargo, in any way, shape or form - though I
think I had a checking account with them years ago when they were
advertising 5 minute service, and it took me 20 minutes to get to a
teller the one time I actually tried. I just periodically look at fees,
rates, etc. Wells recent pricing changes looks very attractive.

I haven't yet seen too many of your posts, but I'm getting the
impression that you may be the kind of investor who really liked Dick
Strong's 800% turnover style. That was the turnover rate for the
Discovery Fund he managed in 1996!


--
Mark Freeland

Re: maybe the argument is old but environment is new?

David

One problem for a UK investor is the tax withholding rules on Canadian
Dividend Funds. I'm not sure of the details but basically a portion of
your income is witheld at source (as a non resident) and you don't get
an income tax credit (which Canadian taxpayers do).

I am very sceptical of Canadian Income Trusts at this point in any
case. Whilst there are some interesting ones eg pure plays on oil
sands (if you believe the thesis that we have reached 'peak oil' and
conventional oil supplies are going to start declining), for the
majority of these ITs have been launched relatively recently and often
have quite a high level of business risk, which will be untested until
the next downturn. They are 'flavour of the month' with Canadian
investors, and I think the easy money has been made in them.

Canada is traditionally seen as a way to play the resource cycle (both
the Canadian $ and the index itself). In practice, 40% of the index is
financial services, so the effect is diluted.

Something like Merrill Lynch World Mining Trust (closed end fund ie
investment trust) is probably a good way to play the resource cycle
from the perspective of a UK-based investor. Low overall management
fees, diversification, and only a broking commission. JP Morgan
Fleming also has a natural resources fund (unit trust I think).

Re: maybe the argument is old but environment is new?

I keep saying this. I have NO interest in Canadian stocks or funds. I do not
hold any or intend to buy any, unless they are held in the UK "American"
funds I hold.

I don't hold any natural resources stocks or funds either, except for those
stocks held in the index or other funds I do hold. If I were to want natural
resource stocks then there are plenty on the London Stock exchange,
including BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Anglo American, Antofagasta and Xstrata
and of course, BP and Royal Dutch Shell, some of which I hold in various
contest portfolios, in the FTSE100 plus dozens more of smaller
capitalisation. .

"darkness39" <> wrote in message
news:
> David
>
> One problem for a UK investor is the tax withholding rules on Canadian
> Dividend Funds. I'm not sure of the details but basically a portion of
> your income is witheld at source (as a non resident) and you don't get
> an income tax credit (which Canadian taxpayers do).
>
> I am very sceptical of Canadian Income Trusts at this point in any
> case. Whilst there are some interesting ones eg pure plays on oil
> sands (if you believe the thesis that we have reached 'peak oil' and
> conventional oil supplies are going to start declining), for the
> majority of these ITs have been launched relatively recently and often
> have quite a high level of business risk, which will be untested until
> the next downturn. They are 'flavour of the month' with Canadian
> investors, and I think the easy money has been made in them.
>
> Canada is traditionally seen as a way to play the resource cycle (both
> the Canadian $ and the index itself). In practice, 40% of the index is
> financial services, so the effect is diluted.
>
> Something like Merrill Lynch World Mining Trust (closed end fund ie
> investment trust) is probably a good way to play the resource cycle
> from the perspective of a UK-based investor. Low overall management
> fees, diversification, and only a broking commission. JP Morgan
> Fleming also has a natural resources fund (unit trust I think).
>

Re: maybe the argument is old but environment is new?

> I haven't yet seen too many of your posts, but I'm getting the
> impression that you may be the kind of trader who really liked Dick
> Strong's 800% turnover style. That was the turnover rate for the
> Discovery Fund he managed in 1996!
>

hehehehehe, with an expense ratio of 1.41%, you got a lot of bang for
the buck. 90's were some crazy(good) days. having an account with
Strong and switching in and out of funds (and the money market fund) was
a good setup. always found that the service was good.

Re: maybe the argument is old but environment is new?

David Wilkinson wrote:
> I keep saying this. I have NO interest in Canadian stocks or funds. I do not
> hold any or intend to buy any, unless they are held in the UK "American"
> funds I hold.
>
> I don't hold any natural resources stocks or funds either, except for those
> stocks held in the index or other funds I do hold. If I were to want natural
> resource stocks then there are plenty on the London Stock exchange,
> including BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Anglo American, Antofagasta and Xstrata
> and of course, BP and Royal Dutch Shell, some of which I hold in various
> contest portfolios, in the FTSE100 plus dozens more of smaller
> capitalisation. .
>

UK market is an odd mix. You have the ultimate 'blue chip' energy and
resource companies (as you name) and then you have a real rag bag of
exploration companies, most of which to my mind are little better than
punts on the 2.30 horse at Goodwood.

There aren't many middle-sized producers say market cap $1bn to $5bn.
If one had a particularly bullish feeling about Nickel, for example,
one would have to buy Inco (Canadian listed). Ditto gold. You don't
really have a pure copper play (but you do have RTZ). Pure natural gas
plays you have British Gas (BG). You don't have any way of playing oil
sands.

As I say, the various closed end (investment trusts) around may be the
best way of playing these things.