enjoyed your posts below. as we move more toward 24/7 trading and world
markets, hope the "Euro" countries get more choices/options for
investing. mind saying what your location is? areas of market interest?
G3 wrote:
> enjoyed your posts below. as we move more toward 24/7 trading and world
> markets, hope the "Euro" countries get more choices/options for
> investing. mind saying what your location is? areas of market interest?
European retail markets are mostly pretty primitive compared to US.
I can summarise it in one: no Vanguard. There is no large supplier
constantly pushing down the cost of investing. And there is no broad
education amongst European investors about the principles of modern
finance: no William Bernstein, no Burton Malkiel etc. Almost all UK
funds, for example, are 'load' funds with 5% sales charges and 1.5%
management fees (only recently have they been compelled to disclose
TERs).
We do now have ETFs but again not in the shape or size you do.
It's a classic case where the competitive market does not provide the
optimal solution: we are stuck at a sub optimal equilibrium (a common
feature of real world markets; consider MS Windows!).
I am UK based.
In article <>,
"darkness39" <> wrote:
> G3 wrote:
> > enjoyed your posts below. as we move more toward 24/7 trading and world
> > markets, hope the "Euro" countries get more choices/options for
> > investing. mind saying what your location is? areas of market interest?
>
> European retail markets are mostly pretty primitive compared to US.
>
> I can summarise it in one: no Vanguard. There is no large supplier
> constantly pushing down the cost of investing. And there is no broad
> education amongst European investors about the principles of modern
> finance: no William Bernstein, no Burton Malkiel etc. Almost all UK
> funds, for example, are 'load' funds with 5% sales charges and 1.5%
> management fees (only recently have they been compelled to disclose
> TERs).
>
> We do now have ETFs but again not in the shape or size you do.
>
> It's a classic case where the competitive market does not provide the
> optimal solution: we are stuck at a sub optimal equilibrium (a common
> feature of real world markets; consider MS Windows!).
>
> I am UK based.
other than finding some sneaky way to get money offshore, guess you have
to play the available games and the cards your dealt.
buy the "risers", sell the "fallers". without a backdrop of multiple
fund co.'s trying to market no-load funds, etc., might force you to be
an active stock picker? does the UK have IRA's, 401k plans?
darkness39 wrote:
> It's a classic case where the competitive market does not provide the
> optimal solution: we are stuck at a sub optimal equilibrium (a common
> feature of real world markets; consider MS Windows!).
Eureka! I know the perfect person to shake up the UK retail investor
market, just as he brought cheap air travel, hotels, etc to the
Euro-everyman: Maybe you ought to make a
proposal for this ripe opportunity and offer to head up EASYFUNDS, if
you can stand to wear an orange suit in an orange office.
Extremely unexpectedly, I spent several days around Stelios not too
long ago and had to struggle against being starstruck to make
occasional small talk with that affable guy. There might even be one
more crossing paths with him, and you have given me an idea for
constructive hints to drop. But maybe both he and you understand the
UK consumer as not yet ready for such a plunge into capitalism.
Speaking of spunky, everyman, US style capitalism, I note that Harvard
has issued some report that adds weight to the fringe theory that the
US overseas deficit doesn't meaningfully exist. Americans rake in
$billions more on their foreign investments than they have to pay out
to foreign creditors. Appears to be due to the investment INTO US
being, well, admittedly larger, but timid and much lower return. So in
a virtual sense, there is no deficit, unless you think the OUTOF US
investments are unsustainably risky. Well, things going a bit south
because of rising interest rate paid OUTOF US.
Debatable, but I think it illustrates the extreme zeal in bashing US
intnl investment deficits is based on more than sober rationality.
Like global warming, there is fashionable apocalyptic ideology at work
by an elite that biases things whenever facts are ambigous - nice to
see that Harvard can once in a great while turn around that bias.
P.S. I think the MS Windows "triumph of mediocrity" wasn't a normal
case of competition halting at suboptimum. What it did to gain
dominance in the early days (before the period covered by recent court
cases) seemed grossly and breathtakingly unfair against various
superior approachs. I think the main reason MS thrived was the
"elites" sat back and didn't do their job prosecuting or whatever
because they thought big bad IBM needed a strong contender and a black
eye - ideology again.
Now VHS over Beta, that was being stuck at a sub-sub-optimum. Anyway,
maybe the UK has similar ideologues or "glue" in the system that is
preventing introduction of a US style fund paradise...
PPS, this current account (non?)deficit is discussed in
(why US dollar isn't
crashing, why long interest rates remain so benign, why this drives
ill-wishing analysts nuts...)
"darkness39" <> wrote in message
news:
> I can summarise it in one: no Vanguard. There is no large supplier
> constantly pushing down the cost of investing. And there is no broad
> education amongst European investors about the principles of modern
> finance: no William Bernstein, no Burton Malkiel etc. Almost all UK
> funds, for example, are 'load' funds with 5% sales charges and 1.5%
> management fees (only recently have they been compelled to disclose
> TERs).
Note: The same thing appears to be true, perhaps to a somewhat lesser
extent, in Canada.
forgot to include a ref
dumbstruck wrote:
> P.S. I think the MS Windows "triumph of mediocrity" wasn't a normal
> case of competition halting at suboptimum. What it did to gain
> dominance in the early days (before the period covered by recent court
> cases) seemed grossly and breathtakingly unfair against various
> superior approachs. I think the main reason MS thrived was the
> "elites" sat back and didn't do their job prosecuting or whatever
> because they thought big bad IBM needed a strong contender and a black
> eye - ideology again.