Personal Development for Smart People Forums - View Single Post

ahimel · 11-27-2006, 02:52 AM

Johnny...

Please forgive my attacking your very premise, but why are you looking at managed funds? If you have a very specific benefit that you believe you can get out of your bank's managed fund, by all means go for it. But in general, I would recommend unmanaged index funds over just about any managed fund.

(Definition: an unmanaged index fund is one where they select a fixed list of stocks/bonds, buy them, and ignore them. Usually the bank doesn't even select them, they just use a pre-defined list, like the 30 stocks that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The stocks you hold only changes if the DJIA list changes.)

Index funds are much cheaper Since there's practically no effort involved (Look up stocks. Buy stocks. Drink coffee) the management fees are significantly lower. I don't have a prospectus on me, but my memory says that a .5% annual fee would be quite normal, as opposed to the 1-3% for a managed fund.
Index funds usually do better People can't consistantly pick stocks better than the market. If the market goes up, financial advisors and fund managers do well. If it goes down, they do poorly. Monkeys throwing darts beat 75% of managed funds. Fund managers with brain damage do better than 75% of their undamanged (still employed) peers. You could just buy "the market" and do as well or better in the case of 75% of the funds.
Index funds are as easy as it gets Yes, 25% of the funds beat the market, but for the time and effort it would take you to figure out who they are, you might as well put in the time to pick your own stocks. Index funds are the lazy man's way to still do at least as well as the market does.

Also, in the US at least, I've found very few banks that offer a good deal on stock-market-like investments. I would seriously consider looking into at least one or two financial advisors, and seeing what kind of deal they can make you.

Is 14%/year supposed to be your return? (I'm hoping it's not your expense ratio!) It depends on what you're investing in, but for a US IRA invested fairly aggressively, that would be on the high end of reasonable; the S&P 500 (another one of those index things) has done 12%-15% per year on average. So 14 is a marketing gimmick, but conforms to truth in advertising.

Congratulations on being debt-free! And welcome to the next step of wealth building!

(PS -- I was a licensed financial advisor before I quit to become an unemployed personal devleopmentalist. My friends like to call me before they invest in something, just to make sure they're not missing something basic. If you'd like to PM me to do the same thing, feel free.)

11-27-2006, 02:52 AM	#2 (permalink)
ahimel Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Boulder, Colorado Posts: 398	Johnny... Please forgive my attacking your very premise, but why are you looking at managed funds? If you have a very specific benefit that you believe you can get out of your bank's managed fund, by all means go for it. But in general, I would recommend unmanaged index funds over just about any managed fund. (Definition: an unmanaged index fund is one where they select a fixed list of stocks/bonds, buy them, and ignore them. Usually the bank doesn't even select them, they just use a pre-defined list, like the 30 stocks that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The stocks you hold only changes if the DJIA list changes.) Index funds are much cheaper Since there's practically no effort involved (Look up stocks. Buy stocks. Drink coffee) the management fees are significantly lower. I don't have a prospectus on me, but my memory says that a .5% annual fee would be quite normal, as opposed to the 1-3% for a managed fund. Index funds usually do better People can't consistantly pick stocks better than the market. If the market goes up, financial advisors and fund managers do well. If it goes down, they do poorly. Monkeys throwing darts beat 75% of managed funds. Fund managers with brain damage do better than 75% of their undamanged (still employed) peers. You could just buy "the market" and do as well or better in the case of 75% of the funds. Index funds are as easy as it gets Yes, 25% of the funds beat the market, but for the time and effort it would take you to figure out who they are, you might as well put in the time to pick your own stocks. Index funds are the lazy man's way to still do at least as well as the market does. Also, in the US at least, I've found very few banks that offer a good deal on stock-market-like investments. I would seriously consider looking into at least one or two financial advisors, and seeing what kind of deal they can make you. Is 14%/year supposed to be your return? (I'm hoping it's not your expense ratio!) It depends on what you're investing in, but for a US IRA invested fairly aggressively, that would be on the high end of reasonable; the S&P 500 (another one of those index things) has done 12%-15% per year on average. So 14 is a marketing gimmick, but conforms to truth in advertising. Congratulations on being debt-free! And welcome to the next step of wealth building! (PS -- I was a licensed financial advisor before I quit to become an unemployed personal devleopmentalist. My friends like to call me before they invest in something, just to make sure they're not missing something basic. If you'd like to PM me to do the same thing, feel free.)