DC:AC=>@DODBX

Figuring myself somewhat topheavy on a global spread awhile ago, I sold
off issues of DODFX and triggered the dreaded frequent-trader syndrome.
And, once again, I found myself banned, this time from Dodge & Cox.
Except for a slight complication that has since arisen, when Dodge and
Cox, today, decided I'm not so bad after all, according to a missive
they sent me -- "The excessive short-term trading restriction that was
previously placed . . . for activity in the Dodge & Cox Funds has been
removed. Effective immediately, you may purchase shares of the Dodge &
Cox Funds and your exchange privileges have been reinstated. Your
account will continue to be monitored . . . " My accountant conveyed a
distinct impresison for the proceedings by immediately addressing my
personage, in such a matter, even without so much as an acount number
to direct him. How nice, I thought well to reciprocate, upon calling
their offices in CA, thereby to establish the firm had initiated
contact, and to concede Dodge & Cox is neither such that I consider it
a bad investment firm, either. In fact, you have another nice fund I
voluntarily, though subsequent and consequently withdrew from - in
reasoning any Edict of Dracon over my timing irresponsibility would be
irreparably severe, at least, for life. But since now all is well and
concessions appear in order, I requested my account status be
reinstated for the latter fund, even though the fund has been a closed
fund during my dismissal and successive exhoneration for trading
violations. So far, that's as far as I've got. Being I've had some
fortune before in modes of tract, and after exhaustively perusing their
website for an inside link to written missives, I find it odd that
Dodge & Cox seems prefer directly to impress public contact into a
means of discourse verbal utterances solely convey. Unless, of course,
someone in the know would most kindly direct me to an electronic
ingress (a company email address or addresses), I can't conceive an
upstanding firm such as Dodge & Cox wanting.

Re: DC:AC=>@DODBX

I'm getting tired of these fund companies telling me what I can and can not
do with my money.
Screw them. I've taken a great liking to ETF's and CEF's and could care less
about the restictive fund companies.

I have a hunch that, like Vanguard, they better get on the ETF bandwagon or
risk becoming the next Ford or GM. They MUST let investors have more control
over their funds or the MUST be gone.






"Flasherly" <> wrote in message
news:
> Figuring myself somewhat topheavy on a global spread awhile ago, I sold
> off issues of DODFX and triggered the dreaded frequent-trader syndrome.
> And, once again, I found myself banned, this time from Dodge & Cox.
> Except for a slight complication that has since arisen, when Dodge and
> Cox, today, decided I'm not so bad after all, according to a missive
> they sent me -- "The excessive short-term trading restriction that was
> previously placed . . . for activity in the Dodge & Cox Funds has been
> removed. Effective immediately, you may purchase shares of the Dodge &
> Cox Funds and your exchange privileges have been reinstated. Your
> account will continue to be monitored . . . " My accountant conveyed a
> distinct impresison for the proceedings by immediately addressing my
> personage, in such a matter, even without so much as an acount number
> to direct him. How nice, I thought well to reciprocate, upon calling
> their offices in CA, thereby to establish the firm had initiated
> contact, and to concede Dodge & Cox is neither such that I consider it
> a bad investment firm, either. In fact, you have another nice fund I
> voluntarily, though subsequent and consequently withdrew from - in
> reasoning any Edict of Dracon over my timing irresponsibility would be
> irreparably severe, at least, for life. But since now all is well and
> concessions appear in order, I requested my account status be
> reinstated for the latter fund, even though the fund has been a closed
> fund during my dismissal and successive exhoneration for trading
> violations. So far, that's as far as I've got. Being I've had some
> fortune before in modes of tract, and after exhaustively perusing their
> website for an inside link to written missives, I find it odd that
> Dodge & Cox seems prefer directly to impress public contact into a
> means of discourse verbal utterances solely convey. Unless, of course,
> someone in the know would most kindly direct me to an electronic
> ingress (a company email address or addresses), I can't conceive an
> upstanding firm such as Dodge & Cox wanting.
>

Re: DC:AC=>@DODBX

Ed wrote:
> I'm getting tired of these fund companies telling me what I can and can not
> do with my money.
> Screw them. I've taken a great liking to ETF's and CEF's and could care less
> about the restictive fund companies.
>
> I have a hunch that, like Vanguard, they better get on the ETF bandwagon or
> risk becoming the next Ford or GM. They MUST let investors have more control
> over their funds or the MUST be gone.

I like mutual funds, though I've noted ETF/CEFs indices have applicable
useage for reducing a performance distinction between the categories
over time. As for selectively narrowing a sense of integral direction
and continuity through actively managed funds, I won't argue. Fund
restrictiveness is something I need to be more attentive. To be
accused of short timing ploys of a profiteer when I take loses makes
less sense than violating a shareholder base by adding to a NAV load
while trading under a time window I'm given. As much as I do refuse to
see myself having any other choice - it's potentially something I may
have to do again within certain market conditions. With little else to
induce me to do otherwise, if savings are to amount to nothing short of
closing all my venture accounts. What I do see myself having to
attempt to avoid, rather, is finding myself in such positions by being
more careful in regards to an extent of my exposure. And that hinges
upon how I come to be exposed. Building upon resource momentum through
established profits over time may is one method I employ. If not and
without time prior to have tradable resources, I may error in entering
uncharted territory under an implied set of trading obligations I may,
or may not, respect. How am I different in that sense from investors
of the crash of the 1920s, widely practising margin buys without
definative rules in place today? Am I more or less culpable when I
feel especially enticed, compelled into sector buys that only return to
haunt my aroused temper with intolerable losses? If it is not going to
be through better temperance practises, as I see, then I will return to
any means I have to limit speculative losses, regardless of attendant
penalties issuers impose on violators. I should hope for the former
instance - it seems good practise -overall- to cultivate.

'Past performance is no indication of furture returns.' -Cogito ergo
non sum.