Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
mf newsletter 5 vanguard funds that double my investment
@JohnChisum- Well, yes, but still take into account that the particular time frame involved was right in the middle of the recovery from the "almost depression" of 2007/08.
And while I do respect your desire to keep politics out of financial affairs, it is a real fact (not one of the new "alternative" variety) that Mr. Obama was the president during that time frame. I'm not postulating that the presidency is directly responsible for financial losses or gains, simply remarking on the facts.
And while I do respect your desire to keep politics out of financial affairs, it is a real fact (not one of the new "alternative" variety) that Mr. Obama was the president during that time frame. I'm not postulating that the presidency is directly responsible for financial losses or gains, simply remarking on the facts.
So your response is to hijack this thread just to get the last word? Desperately pitiful.
I apologize @johnN. This was a good discussion you started. Do not let the political interruption overrun your thread.
If OJ had wanted to hijack the thread, he could have said that W created this market. That would have been backward looking, as opposed to describing the market conditions at the time.
My issues with the article are threefold:
1. Anecdotal - it doesn't demonstrate much of anything. To suggest that this shows buy-and hold works would require (a) many different samples, and (b) comparisons with trading examples (which would likely also show abnormally high rates of returns simply due to the market rally).
2. Related to #1, the article contains the assertion that "Index funds tend to do best in bull markets". If we're going to use this anecdotal data, what we see is that all the non-index funds (there's one) beat all the index funds (there are four). That's all the more impressive given that the Primecap investment was for nearly the shortest length of time (one of the index fund investments was for a week longer).
3. Unverifiable - sale dates were not provided (only original purchase dates).
@JohnChisum- I find it "desperately pitiful" that one cannot mention actual, real facts that have a bearing on the subject without attempts at censorship. msf is quite perceptive: I deliberately avoided the question of how the market was created, not wishing to create an adversarial post. If you have a different perspective on the observations that I made, by all means let's hear it.
I will keep this simple so you can focus OJ. Your first paragraph was all that was needed to make your point regarding the time frame and financial climate. The second paragraph is your response from the other thread which you cannot let go. Throwing out words like censorship is mighty big of you while trying to shut up anyone who might disagree with you.
You are being the @rse here, not I. To make it even simpler for you, I'm going to stop here. No more responses. I expect this thread to be locked anyway. It's way off the original subject.
It's too bad a handful of people here ruin the experience for everyone else. I'm going to step aside. There is no need for me to wade in your excrement.
One of us believes that no one has a right to introduce any facts or data that have the slightest political aspect, whether or not that information may be germane to the discussion. If that right does not exist, how is that not censorship?
One of us does not believe that. His observations are therefore labelled as "excrement".
Perhaps you should remain in the Philippines, John. Your present leader should be very appealing to your state of mind. Then again, your choice of language suggests that you would feel welcome here also, given the attempts to stifle any and all information that is not "approved" by the present administration.
I have enjoed Dr. Madell's newsletter for sometime now. I hope you have as well.
In this newsletter Dr. Madell is wanting feedback from his readers. With this, I encourage you to provide information he is requesting so he can write a more interesting and informative newsletter. In addition, his time is such that he may have to cut this from a monthly edition to something less.
I'm thinking, he will keep it a monthly publication if he feels his readership is benefiting from his writting.
I am sure your comments to Dr. Madell would be welcomed.
As to this article from Dr. Madell; I ask, "and the point is ???".
From the article: " So the data presented below are merely intended to show what might be able to be achieved with some luck, and perhaps, by investing going forward mainly in funds that appear to be undervalued at the time investments are initiated."
>>>A check of a most simple ETF, being VTI; indicates that during the same holding period noted in the article (using the 10-8-2010 start date for a few entries), that VTI had a total return of 128.8% or an annulized rate for this period of 11.25%. For this ETF, $10,000 became $22,880, during the time period in the article.
I didn't find anything in his write that was pointing or leading an investor into a conclusion of what he documented. Perhaps a buy and hold of certain equity/bond funds? What would be the take away of learning for a new investor attempting to understand more about investing decisions from this article? OR perhaps to rely on "luck" and hoping to understand when an investment is "undervalued". Okay, good luck with all of that.....
During rising (bull) markets talk turns naturally to how much one might (hypothetically) make given good luck and some timely investments. During falling (bear) markets talk turns to how much one might (hypothetically) lose and the number of years it would take to gain it back. -
@OJ - Perhaps we need a list of banned words and phrases likely to induce consternation among some? "Alternative facts" seems to fit that mold and could be placed at the top of said list.
Comments
Thanks john N
And while I do respect your desire to keep politics out of financial affairs, it is a real fact (not one of the new "alternative" variety) that Mr. Obama was the president during that time frame. I'm not postulating that the presidency is directly responsible for financial losses or gains, simply remarking on the facts.
So your response is to hijack this thread just to get the last word? Desperately pitiful.
I apologize @johnN. This was a good discussion you started. Do not let the political interruption overrun your thread.
My issues with the article are threefold:
1. Anecdotal - it doesn't demonstrate much of anything. To suggest that this shows buy-and hold works would require (a) many different samples, and (b) comparisons with trading examples (which would likely also show abnormally high rates of returns simply due to the market rally).
2. Related to #1, the article contains the assertion that "Index funds tend to do best in bull markets". If we're going to use this anecdotal data, what we see is that all the non-index funds (there's one) beat all the index funds (there are four). That's all the more impressive given that the Primecap investment was for nearly the shortest length of time (one of the index fund investments was for a week longer).
3. Unverifiable - sale dates were not provided (only original purchase dates).
You are being the @rse here, not I. To make it even simpler for you, I'm going to stop here. No more responses. I expect this thread to be locked anyway. It's way off the original subject.
It's too bad a handful of people here ruin the experience for everyone else. I'm going to step aside. There is no need for me to wade in your excrement.
So long.
One of us believes that no one has a right to introduce any facts or data that have the slightest political aspect, whether or not that information may be germane to the discussion. If that right does not exist, how is that not censorship?
One of us does not believe that. His observations are therefore labelled as "excrement".
Perhaps you should remain in the Philippines, John. Your present leader should be very appealing to your state of mind. Then again, your choice of language suggests that you would feel welcome here also, given the attempts to stifle any and all information that is not "approved" by the present administration.
I have enjoed Dr. Madell's newsletter for sometime now. I hope you have as well.
In this newsletter Dr. Madell is wanting feedback from his readers. With this, I encourage you to provide information he is requesting so he can write a more interesting and informative newsletter. In addition, his time is such that he may have to cut this from a monthly edition to something less.
I'm thinking, he will keep it a monthly publication if he feels his readership is benefiting from his writting.
I am sure your comments to Dr. Madell would be welcomed.
Old_Skeet
As to this article from Dr. Madell; I ask, "and the point is ???".
From the article: " So the data presented below are merely intended to show what might be able to be achieved with some luck, and perhaps, by investing going forward mainly in funds that appear to be undervalued at the time investments are initiated."
>>>A check of a most simple ETF, being VTI; indicates that during the same holding period noted in the article (using the 10-8-2010 start date for a few entries), that VTI had a total return of 128.8% or an annulized rate for this period of 11.25%. For this ETF, $10,000 became $22,880, during the time period in the article.
I didn't find anything in his write that was pointing or leading an investor into a conclusion of what he documented. Perhaps a buy and hold of certain equity/bond funds?
What would be the take away of learning for a new investor attempting to understand more about investing decisions from this article? OR perhaps to rely on "luck" and hoping to understand when an investment is "undervalued". Okay, good luck with all of that.....
My honest 2 cents worth.
Regards,
Catch
I guess your question comes to me? Perhaps, others to?
For me, in short words.
There are many investment vehicles that can take you to your investment destination. Here are five, by the author, that took him to his.
Take care ... and, good to hear from you.
Skeet
-
@OJ - Perhaps we need a list of banned words and phrases likely to induce consternation among some? "Alternative facts" seems to fit that mold and could be placed at the top of said list.