Rule of thumb for doing it yourself.

#36 02-19-2004, 12:52 PM

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 07:26:51 CST, noreplysoccer[at]hotmail.com (Jim)
wrote:

- quote -

> Wouldn't it be fair to say the index will do good as long as the right
> stocks get added? There will always be stocks on the outside of the
> index which fit the index profile, except they haven't been included
> yet.

Good comment - there will always be stocks not in the SP500 index but
which otherwise fit the profile. But this is not new.

As has been said here before, except for the fact that it is
diversified and blue chippy, the secret of the SP500 Index Fund's
long-term success is *not* the particular stocks in the index at any
particular time.

It's the costs.

-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

#35 02-19-2004, 12:26 PM

zaladin[at]home.se (Joakim Persson) wrote in message news:<403382bd.21768411[at]news.lth.se> ...

- quote -

> Well, of course the amount of funds beating the S&P changes daily. However,
> over the long run, it is probable that indexing beats other funds. In the
> 75th percentile one day, in the 83rd at some point in the future, but
> probably always above the median.
> Add to this the fact that many mutual funds have fees attached to them,
> which makes it even harder for the individual investor to beat the index.
> It doesn't really matter if the S&P beats 60% or 90% of the managed funds,
> it still beats most of them over time.
> This is not to say that one cannot beat the index over the long run. But it
> is a very difficult task, and the S&P index vs managed mutual funds debate
> is definitely an argument in favor for those who believe in the EMH.

Question-

does anyone know the largest stocks not included in the S&P 500 index.
If those 5 stocks had a GREAT year, how do we know they would be
added to the index the next year?

Wouldn't it be fair to say the index will do good as long as the right
stocks get added? There will always be stocks on the outside of the
index which fit the index profile, except they haven't been included
yet.

cya

#34 02-19-2004, 09:02 AM

"Joakim Persson" <zaladin[at]home.se> wrote in message
news:403382bd.21768411[at]news.lth.se...
- quote -

> Well, of course the amount of funds beating the S&P changes daily.
However,
> over the long run, it is probable that indexing beats other funds. In the
> 75th percentile one day, in the 83rd at some point in the future, but
> probably always above the median.

This is what indexers have said for years, but I don't find it difficult to
beat the index, even when that isn't the goal (and often, it's not even a
consideration).

- quote -

> Add to this the fact that many mutual funds have fees attached to them,
> which makes it even harder for the individual investor to beat the index.
> It doesn't really matter if the S&P beats 60% or 90% of the managed funds,
> it still beats most of them over time.

The best performing investments generally have the highest fees. Nobody ever
mentions this fact, so I'll put it here. How about 5% to distribute, 5% to
manage (plus expensses -- the 5% is guaranteed PROFIT for the manager), and
the manager shares to the tune of 25% of the gain in the project? Indexers
shudder at the thought of these "high" fees. Personally, I like the
performance that is more than DOUBLE the S&P 500 since inception -- and that
is double NET of all those fees. There are plenty of things one can get into
that beat an index. This is merely one of them.

- quote -

> This is not to say that one cannot beat the index over the long run. But
it
> is a very difficult task, and the S&P index vs managed mutual funds debate
> is definitely an argument in favor for those who believe in the EMH.

In all my years, I've never had anyone with any significant worth who came
in my office and asked me to beat some index. In fact, it has never come up,
and I have over 1,400 active clients. Beating the index isn't that
difficult, as long as one can accept the risks that come with those
projects.

On the other hand, another factoid often ignored, is that many actively
managed funds -- even those that willingly compare themselves to a passive
index -- do not have an objective of beating the index. Various strategies
can take advantage of a funds characteristics and produce more after-tax
money, despite underperforming some "unmanaged" index (the quotes are
because it IS a managed index, but you don't know the managers and they
aren't held accountable).

Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
Chartered Financial Consultant
http://members.cox.net/brentdgardner1378/

"Be ever questioning. Ignorance is not bliss. It is oblivion. You don't go
to heaven if you die dumb. Become better informed. Learn from other's
mistakes. You could not live long enough to make them all yourself." - Hyman
George Rickover (1900-86), Admiral, US Navy, advocated development of
nuclear subs & ships

The Chartered Life Underwriter (CLU) and Chartered Financial Consultant
(ChFC), designations owned and exclusively offered by The American College,
signify the highest standards of academic study and professional excellence
in the financial services industry.

#33 02-19-2004, 02:16 AM

["Brent D. Gardner, ChFC" <bgardner20[at]cox.net> ] wrote:
[ 32 lines in misc.invest.financial-plan ]
===================

- quote -

> "Greg Hennessy" <greg.hennessy[at]cox.net> wrote in message
> news:c0m3lj$6ca$1[at]tantalus.no-ip.org...
> > Morningstar currently shows its 10 year average being in the 83rd
> > percentile. On what do you base your claim that the OP's statistic is
> > not true?
> You just proved me right.
> 75 does not equal 83, even if you subscribe to "new math" taught at some
> public schools. This figure changes daily, too. That's my point, which you
> obviously missed. At various points in time, the statistics were not
> favorable for passive, and among certain asset classes, they never have
> been.
> Since more than half of investors weren't in the market 10 years ago, the 10
> year comparison is all but irrelevant (Source ICI).

Well, of course the amount of funds beating the S&P changes daily. However,
over the long run, it is probable that indexing beats other funds. In the
75th percentile one day, in the 83rd at some point in the future, but
probably always above the median.

Add to this the fact that many mutual funds have fees attached to them,
which makes it even harder for the individual investor to beat the index.
It doesn't really matter if the S&P beats 60% or 90% of the managed funds,
it still beats most of them over time.

This is not to say that one cannot beat the index over the long run. But it
is a very difficult task, and the S&P index vs managed mutual funds debate
is definitely an argument in favor for those who believe in the EMH.

--
Joakim Persson
M.S. student, CS/CE [at] LTH, Lund, Sweden
Libertarian -- Heavy Metal fanatic
zaladin[at]home.se -- http://www.efd.lth.se/~d00jp

#32 02-16-2004, 08:50 PM

In article <yob65e6x0en.fsf[at]panix1.panix.com> ,
<BreadWithSpam[at]fractious.net> wrote:
- quote -

> One of the problems with saying that the index beats 75
> or 83 or whatever percent of mutual funds over the long
> term is that it's a comparison of funds to funds and
> doesn't reflect real-world investor behaviour.

Well, it isn't mean to reflect investor behavior, so I don't see how
it doesn't is a complaint.

I agree that many real world investors don't have good habits. One of
the bad habits they have is to listen to people pitching various funds
and annuitites and flavor of the month high pressure sales talk to put
money into things that over the long term don't give them a lot of
return.

I'm quite happy with half my investment portfolio being in a no load,
low expense index fund. And I am not inviting commentary on the wisdom
of that choice.

#31 02-16-2004, 07:36 PM

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:58:12 CST, BreadWithSpam[at]fractious.net wrote:

- quote -

> One of the things about certain insurance products,
> as well as IRAs and other forms of "locking" investors
> into a program is that it makes it somewhat less likely
> that investors will behave skittishly.
> The average of a particular investment is not the same
> as the average results of an investor.

Agree - I've often observed that a good advisor earns his keep not by
picking outstanding investments but by keeping the investor
comfortable and on track.

-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

#30 02-16-2004, 07:17 PM

"Brent D. Gardner, ChFC" <bgardner20[at]cox.net> wrote in message news:<HE0Sb.849$ay1.15[at]okepread05> ...
- quote -

> "Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn[at]worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:G_ZRb.131397$6y6.2552578[at]bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > To some extent, yes. How do you determine you're getting the best doctor
> or
> > accountant? How would you determine your child (if and when you ever have
> > one) has the best teacher? You have to know something about those
> > subjects, to know whether to keep the one you hired or fire him.

> If people were any good at selecting doctors, we'd have no need for
> malpractice suits OR malpractice insurance.

Even the best doctors can have a bad outcome, people need bad outcome
insurance but can't buy it.

- quote -

> Public education is a joke in America today. It is the MLR in the war on
> boys, at this point, and boys are losing. If parents knew how to select
> teachers, a lot of schools would close for lack of enrollment, and there'd
> be a glut of teachers looking for new jobs. Under the current system,
> there's virtually no incentives to actually teach.

I live in a state where public education is very good except for the
core of a large city.

- quote -

> > But some of us Do-It-Yourselfers have mutual funds. Do you not think we've
> > hired professional financial managers? If not, what would you call them?

> A financial advisor does MUCH more, including MANY things that a mutual fund
> manager neither has time for, much less the desire and skill for.

Good point.

--
Ron

#29 02-16-2004, 06:58 PM

greg.hennessy[at]cox.net (Greg Hennessy) writes:
- quote -

> Brent D. Gardner, ChFC <bgardner20[at]cox.net> wrote:
> > > Morningstar currently shows its 10 year average being in the 83rd
> > > percentile. On what do you base your claim that the OP's statistic is
> > > not true?
> > > You just proved me right.
> No, I proved you wrong. You claimed that the index in question was not
> doing better than "about 75 percent". I posted proof that it was doing
> *BETTER* than that.

One of the problems with saying that the index beats 75
or 83 or whatever percent of mutual funds over the long
term is that it's a comparison of funds to funds and
doesn't reflect real-world investor behaviour.

I'm not sure of Brent's point, but one of the things that
gets overlooked very frequently in these discussions is
that individual investors behave very differently from
the 'long term investments' that we so often use as
proxies for how styles of investment can and do behave.

I don't have a reference handy, but there have been
studies indicating that individual investors have
certain very bad habits - buying past performance,
selling at the wrong time, etc. etc.

One of the things about certain insurance products,
as well as IRAs and other forms of "locking" investors
into a program is that it makes it somewhat less likely
that investors will behave skittishly.

The average of a particular investment is not the same
as the average results of an investor.

--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

#28 02-16-2004, 01:55 PM

On the other hand there are some pretty stupid investment advisors that lost
huge portions of their client's portfolio during the "dot com" error. I
know some personally. I agree why you guys are saying about "good"
investment advisors but they are not all good. One has to be very careful
when picking one.

As far as mutual funds, when comparing my portfolio performance with an
equivalent mutual fund, they just don't perform as well. I think Brent
mentioned sitting down face to face. The large mutual fund managers don't
really have to face client and I don't think they have the accountability to
their client that an investment advisor has.

I was a do it your self until I retired. I did OK. I was a little
apprehensive about letting someone else handle my funds. Not so much
knowledge, I know the manager has more of that. It's how much risk are they
willing to take on in my name. That's the biggest thing to me. Prior to
retirement, I was courted pretty heavily by financial advisors. Some were
just ridiculous and I didn't trust them.

"Ed Zollars, CPA" <ezollar[at]mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bves0t02oln[at]enews1.newsguy.com...
- quote -

> Brent D. Gardner, ChFC wrote:
> > You're talking about some pretty stupid people. I would fire them, and
let
> > the amateurs fight over the scraps. Those people aren't worthy of my
time.
> I suspect you'll find that most of us in tax practice know
> of at least a few of this type. They appear otherwise
> rational, but they can't resist jumping ship from investment
> adviser to investment adviser.
> Similar types exist for tax advisers, but I can normally
> spot those immediately since I ask for the prior three
> year's returns to get familiar with the issues facing this
> client--but one thing that immediately stands out is if
> there have been three different preparers in the past three
> years in the signature block.
> Since my fee is always an estimate, let's just say I give
> that group an estimate on the high side <grin> .
> --
> Ed Zollars, CPA
> Phoenix, Arizona

#27 02-15-2004, 07:14 PM

In article <TeOXb.90273$ay1.77875[at]okepread05> ,
Brent D. Gardner, ChFC <bgardner20[at]cox.net> wrote:
- quote -

> > Morningstar currently shows its 10 year average being in the 83rd
> > percentile. On what do you base your claim that the OP's statistic is
> > not true?
> You just proved me right.

No, I proved you wrong. You claimed that the index in question was not
doing better than "about 75 percent". I posted proof that it was doing
*BETTER* than that.

- quote -

> 75 does not equal 83, even if you subscribe to "new math" taught at some
> public schools. This figure changes daily, too. That's my point, which you
> obviously missed.

The question was not specific, it was a ballpark value. Trying to
pretend you are right because on one day it beats 75.000000 percent of
the available funds, and the next day it beats only 74.999998 percent
of the funds is disingenuous.

The number of course changes. If you have *EVIDENCE* that the long
term behaviour of the S&P 500 index fund does not beat "about 75",
present it, because Morningstar shows it does.

- quote -

> Since more than half of investors weren't in the market 10 years ago, the 10
> year comparison is all but irrelevant (Source ICI).

I find it amusing how those with a vested interest in selling people
funds continue to find reasons to discount the fact that low expense,
no load S&P 500 index funds beat the majority of funds out there.

They even claim victory when they are incorrect.

Not that I'm referring to Brent, of course.

#26 02-15-2004, 05:10 PM

"Greg Hennessy" <greg.hennessy[at]cox.net> wrote in message
news:c0m3lj$6ca$1[at]tantalus.no-ip.org...
- quote -

> Morningstar currently shows its 10 year average being in the 83rd
> percentile. On what do you base your claim that the OP's statistic is
> not true?

You just proved me right.

75 does not equal 83, even if you subscribe to "new math" taught at some
public schools. This figure changes daily, too. That's my point, which you
obviously missed. At various points in time, the statistics were not
favorable for passive, and among certain asset classes, they never have
been.

Since more than half of investors weren't in the market 10 years ago, the 10
year comparison is all but irrelevant (Source ICI).

Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
Chartered Financial Consultant
http://members.cox.net/brentdgardner1378/

"Be ever questioning. Ignorance is not bliss. It is oblivion. You don't go
to heaven if you die dumb. Become better informed. Learn from other's
mistakes. You could not live long enough to make them all yourself." - Hyman
George Rickover (1900-86), Admiral, US Navy, advocated development of
nuclear subs & ships

The Chartered Life Underwriter (CLU) and Chartered Financial Consultant
(ChFC), designations owned and exclusively offered by The American College,
signify the highest standards of academic study and professional excellence
in the financial services industry.

#25 02-15-2004, 09:43 AM

- quote -

> Here's a brief Forbes article which makes the case, and gives their
> explanation for why it is so difficult to beat the market long term.
> http://www.forbes.com/funds/2001/06/01/0601funds.html
> -HW "Skip" Weldon
> Columbia, SC
I was not too impressed with the above article.

As far as index investing, it's an easy way to get diversitification.
I think with an extra couple of hours of homework, an investor could
choose better mutual funds.

Those with little time to spend on investments (should) consult an
advisor who will probably suggest some types of managed funds. Goal
here is to make money, performance relative to market is a distant
second.

Those with time to spend researching a minimal amount tend to read
articles like the above and buy index funds. the primary measurement
here is to come close to the market performance, positive or negative.

Those with slightly more time to spend researching will probably find
funds to buy which are managed and can beat the market by assett
allocation. People in this category probably measure their success by
making money first and beating the market second.

I'm guessing at all the stereo types, but the article didn;t prove too
much to me.

Jim

#24 02-14-2004, 08:30 PM

In article <k4tXb.89971$ay1.49198[at]okepread05> ,
Brent D. Gardner, ChFC <bgardner20[at]cox.net> wrote:
- quote -

> "TooTall" <TooTall[at]TooTall.com> wrote in message
> news:102r44afs6pvm97[at]corp.supernews.com...
> > Doesn't the S&P 500 index beat something like 75% of money managers?
> That statement was true, for one point in time. Before and since, generally
> not true.

Morningstar currently shows its 10 year average being in the 83rd
percentile. On what do you base your claim that the OP's statistic is
not true?

#23 02-14-2004, 04:45 PM

"TooTall" <TooTall[at]TooTall.com> wrote in message
news:102r44afs6pvm97[at]corp.supernews.com...
- quote -

> Doesn't the S&P 500 index beat something like 75% of money managers?

That statement was true, for one point in time. Before and since, generally
not true.

Why? Statistics change.

Mutual funds have this neat little disclosure on the prospectus. It often
reads "Past performance is not an indicator of future results."

People who repeat the myth of passive performance always forget that
disclosure when repeating the same out-of-date statistics.

Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
Chartered Financial Consultant
http://members.cox.net/brentdgardner1378/

"Be ever questioning. Ignorance is not bliss. It is oblivion. You don't go
to heaven if you die dumb. Become better informed. Learn from other's
mistakes. You could not live long enough to make them all yourself." - Hyman
George Rickover (1900-86), Admiral, US Navy, advocated development of
nuclear subs & ships

The Chartered Life Underwriter (CLU) and Chartered Financial Consultant
(ChFC), designations owned and exclusively offered by The American College,
signify the highest standards of academic study and professional excellence
in the financial services industry.

#22 02-14-2004, 03:26 PM

It's not a mystery. Yes, that is the simple basics, however in reality the
simple basics is not enough if you plan on managing your own portfolio. We
simple don't have access to the bonds that the pros do. Anyone can buy a
stock online, not so with bonds. There are a lot of great deals in bonds
that most people don't have the knowledge to or capital to acquire.

As far as stock, just buy the S and P 500 and forget about it. You'll do as
well as the next guy. Buying a bond mutual fund right now is a sure way to
lose capital, in my opinion. However there are ways to stay short term and
still get reason returns of about 10% (this year) with investment grade
bonds.

I'm not an expert, just a retired old man who has a little experience with
fixed income.

"BMS" <mcfarland[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JrfXb.175212$U%5.826529[at]attbi_s03...
- quote -

> Given the other post you have, I don't understand the mystery to fixed
> income. Yields go one way, prices the other. That's all the moving parts.
> "TooTall" <TooTall[at]TooTall.com> wrote in message
> news:102ok2b8e9in036[at]corp.supernews.com...
> > I don't thing it's reasonable. The stock part of ones portfolio is the
> easy
> > part in my opinion. It's the fixed income that's going to be larger and
> > more difficult to handle. I think finding a good bond manager, not
mutual
> > fund manager, is the most important thing of all.
> > Personal opinion.
> > > > "BMS" <mcfarland[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Sc0Rb.152813$na.262067[at]attbi_s04...
> > > Heard an interesting measure for managing your own accounts.
> > > > > To do your own account you need to be able to devote one hour to each
> > > position you hold each week. If cannot provide that time you will
> probably
> > > need assistance.
> > > > > Does this make sense?
> > >

#21 02-14-2004, 11:41 AM

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 04:52:52 CST, "TooTall" <TooTall[at]TooTall.comwrote:

- quote -

> Doesn't the S&P 500 index beat something like 75% of money managers?
You have to be careful with this. The evidence that the market

outperforms most investors is long-term only; it does not necessarily
apply to short- or mid-term. And I do mean long-term... 20+ years or
more.

Here's a brief Forbes article which makes the case, and gives their
explanation for why it is so difficult to beat the market long term.

http://www.forbes.com/funds/2001/06/01/0601funds.html

-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

#20 02-14-2004, 09:52 AM

Doesn't the S&P 500 index beat something like 75% of money managers?

"Brent D. Gardner, ChFC" <bgardner20[at]cox.net> wrote in message
news:2OGRb.364$ay1.31[at]okepread05...
- quote -

> "Richard Cline" <dcline[at]silcom.com> wrote in message
> news:dcline-7FC326.12080427012004[at]news.silcom.com...
> > In article <N1nRb.80$ay1.0[at]okepread05> , "Brent D. Gardner, ChFC"
> > <bgardner20[at]cox.net> wrote:
> > > Keep in mind that you will need to know enough to fire your money
> > manager when he performs poorly. This alone requires careful attention
> > to his investment success and comparison to how well you might have
> > done. Simply investing in an index fund will outperform many money
> > managers.
> That's what you think.
> That's what the media have fooled you into believing.
> Actual results indicate a DEVASTATINGLY POOR results of DIY investing, no
> matter what one invest in, when they aren't a professional.
> To wit, DALBAR'S periodic survey indicates that the average DIY investor
> would have done better in a short term CD, underperforming the unmanaged
> index by VAST margins.
> According to the Advantage Compendium:
> "Last year DALBAR reported the results of a study showing that for the
years
> from 1984 through 2002 the S&P 500 averaged an annual return of 12.22%,
> while the average investor earned 2.57%. How could investors generate
> passbook savings returns during the greatest bull market period in
history?
> The main reasons investors earn lousy returns and continue to make the
same
> mistakes over and over again are a lack of understanding about the
realities
> of risk, and even when they do understand, their decisions are usually
> driven by their heart instead of their head.
> I am sure you have heard that the longer you stay in the stock market the
> less likely you are to lose principal. And it's true. If you look at
> performance of the S&P 500 over the last 50 years 17.0% of the five year
> holding periods resulted in a loss of principal compared to 9.5% of the
ten
> year periods. But that's not the whole story. Even though only one in ten
> ten-year stock market periods would have resulted in a loss, one in three
> would have produced a return of under 5% a year.
> 1 in 3 ten-year stock market periods produced annualized returns under
5%!!!
> Think about that. You've endured the ups and downs of the stock market for
> ten years, but based on historical performance there's a one in three shot
> that you probably could have done just about as well nestled in a bed of
> bonds or fixed annuities. One out of three times you were not rewarded for
> the extra risk you took - that risk being the one in ten chance of losing
> your original dollars.
> I'm not denying the odds of getting better than a 5% annual return are in
> your favor if you play the market for longer periods, what I'm saying is
if
> consumers understood the realities of stock market risk and return, many
of
> them would probably conclude that the risk of loss is too great even given
> the better than even odds of success. And even when the head understands
the
> risk and the odds, the heart takes over and screws everything up.
> When bull markets are raging greed takes over and we buy at cycle tops
> because we don't want to miss out, when bear markets begin we don't sell
> after our gains have slipped by 4% (on their way down to 20% or more)
> because we hope good times will quickly return, and when the cycle has
> bottomed and is poised to rise again we sell, because we extrapolate the
bad
> times out in time forever. None of these actions are logical; they are all
> driven by emotion."
> ///end quote
> A similar study of Fidelity Magellan shareholders during Peter Lynch's
> heyday showed that the average shareholder LOST MONEY, even though the
fund
> delivered outstanding performance. Articles covering such studies don't
make
> the front page, and are soon forgotten by those guilty of confirmation
bias,
> mental accounting, and judgemental heuristics.
> The reality is that an investment advisor can underperform the market, but
> beat the DIY investor by HUGE MARGINS, year in and year out, and do it
with
> less risk. Picking investments isn't that difficult, but managing
> expectations, and managing a client? Those are much tougher tasks that the
> logicians and statisticians never grasp, and that's where the best
advisors
> shine.
> Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
> Chartered Financial Consultant
> http://members.cox.net/brentdgardner1378/
> "Be ever questioning. Ignorance is not bliss. It is oblivion. You don't go
> to heaven if you die dumb. Become better informed. Learn from other's
> mistakes. You could not live long enough to make them all yourself." -
Hyman
> George Rickover (1900-86), Admiral, US Navy, advocated development of
> nuclear subs & ships
> The Chartered Life Underwriter (CLU) and Chartered Financial Consultant
> (ChFC), designations owned and exclusively offered by The American
College,
> signify the highest standards of academic study and professional
excellence
> in the financial services industry.

#19 02-14-2004, 09:51 AM

Given the other post you have, I don't understand the mystery to fixed
income. Yields go one way, prices the other. That's all the moving parts.

"TooTall" <TooTall[at]TooTall.com> wrote in message
news:102ok2b8e9in036[at]corp.supernews.com...
- quote -

> I don't thing it's reasonable. The stock part of ones portfolio is the
easy
> part in my opinion. It's the fixed income that's going to be larger and
> more difficult to handle. I think finding a good bond manager, not mutual
> fund manager, is the most important thing of all.
> Personal opinion.
> "BMS" <mcfarland[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Sc0Rb.152813$na.262067[at]attbi_s04...
> > Heard an interesting measure for managing your own accounts.
> > > To do your own account you need to be able to devote one hour to each
> > position you hold each week. If cannot provide that time you will
probably
> > need assistance.
> > > Does this make sense?

#18 02-13-2004, 09:20 AM

I don't thing it's reasonable. The stock part of ones portfolio is the easy
part in my opinion. It's the fixed income that's going to be larger and
more difficult to handle. I think finding a good bond manager, not mutual
fund manager, is the most important thing of all.
Personal opinion.

"BMS" <mcfarland[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Sc0Rb.152813$na.262067[at]attbi_s04...
- quote -

> Heard an interesting measure for managing your own accounts.
> To do your own account you need to be able to devote one hour to each
> position you hold each week. If cannot provide that time you will probably
> need assistance.
> Does this make sense?

#17 01-31-2004, 02:16 AM

"Ed Zollars, CPA" <ezollar[at]mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bves0t02oln[at]enews1.newsguy.com...
- quote -

> Since my fee is always an estimate, let's just say I give
> that group an estimate on the high side <grin> .

I agree, for the right amount of money, I'll suffer.

For a while. ;-)

I suppose I could tell up front "This is my fee for my services. This is my
fee for my patience and tolerance."

One of my mentors, when faced with a 'know it all' would do some quick
analysis and suggest a VERY LARGE whole life policy for as much death
benefit as one could justify. I remember a couple of interviews where the
prospect was the kind that they make dark comedies about -- a total horse's
arse. The kind that you WANT to refer to your competition. I knew my
mentor to be a builder/relationship oriented agent, going back year after
year, building a portfolio of insurance with his best clients. If he tried
to get the whole thing up front, that meant he didn't want to come back (it
took months to notice this behavior).

His strategy backfired sometimes, because a few bought anyway. Then I had
to field these calls from home offices thanking us for the business.

Brent D. Gardner, ChFC
Chartered Financial Consultant
http://members.cox.net/brentdgardner1378/

"Be ever questioning. Ignorance is not bliss. It is oblivion. You don't go
to heaven if you die dumb. Become better informed. Learn from other's
mistakes. You could not live long enough to make them all yourself." - Hyman
George Rickover (1900-86), Admiral, US Navy, advocated development of
nuclear subs & ships

The Chartered Life Underwriter (CLU) and Chartered Financial Consultant
(ChFC), designations owned and exclusively offered by The American College,
signify the highest standards of academic study and professional excellence
in the financial services industry.

Similar Threads
Thread	Forum	Replies	Last Post
problem Backing up to thumb drives BJV: When back up to a 4.0 gig cruzer lock thumb drive I get a dialog box that tells me "Money has filled the current disk" "Please insert Backup Disk...	Microsoft Money	2	08-03-2007 11:08 PM
Putting Microsoft Money 2006 Application on a Thumb Drive Inquiring Minds: Hello Does any know how to put Microsoft Money 2006 application and data file on a Thumb drive to use on any computer? Also what size Thumb...	Microsoft Money	2	03-03-2007 10:30 PM
Is Thumb Tax Constitutional? William Brenner: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/comics/king.htm?name=Hagar_The_Horrible&date=20040805 <<...	Taxes	1	08-15-2004 06:32 PM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode