It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I love this assertion that the past stock market's performance is prelude to the future market's performance. Let's assume that indexers are right and that stock performance truly is a "random walk," which active managers can't predict and therefore can't beat. Why accept the other notion indexers believe in then that in the "long run stocks always go up" if it is truly random? The 104 years of market history this author cites is less than a heartbeat in the history of the planet. Just because markets have gone up in the past is no guarantee they will go up in the future. Rising markets are not a law of nature like gravity in physics. There is no guarantee even that stock markets will continue to exist. There is a historical precedence for markets disappearing altogether as happened to Russia in the 1910s during the Russian revolution: https://the-international-investor.com/2011/st-petersburg-stock-exchange-1865-1917-diversification-pays-emerging-markets"You may be thinking that, if passive is the way to go, you might as well make things even simpler. Why not just put your retirement money in the bank and forget it? While you can certainly do that, the results may be disastrous. If you want more than just Social Security for your retirement, you need your money to grow.
Consider this. In 1913, nine cents bought a quart of milk. In 1963, the same nine cents bought a small glass of milk. In 2015, nine cents bought seven tablespoons of milk. Clearly, putting money under the mattress doesn't work for the long term. The culprit of the declining purchasing power of that nine cents is inflation. The moral of this story is to make sure your money grows at least as fast as inflation.
That requires investing it. For example, it would require $13 today to equal the purchasing power that $1 provided in 1926. Had you put one dollar in the bank in 1926, you would have $21 today. Having invested the dollar in long-term bonds would give you $132. However, invested in the S&P 500 index (stocks), you would have $5,386."
While I find M*'s "purchase" pages (lists of brokerage availability) some of the least reliable (usually errors of omission), in this case M* was spot on.Scottrade offers both CENTX (world allocation) and CINTX (foreign LB) for $100 minimums in taxable and retirement accounts + TF as Kevin described.
Kevin
aah...i trusted M* fund page which still does not list Scottrade.
aah...i trusted M* fund page which still does not list Scottrade. Good to know, then it will be also available in TD Ameritrade.Scottrade offers both CENTX (world allocation) and CINTX (foreign LB) for $100 minimums in taxable and retirement accounts + TF.
Kevin
Very helpful to know! Thanks for pointing it out. I certainly missed it. BestScottrade offers both CENTX (world allocation) and CINTX (foreign LB) for $100 minimums in taxable and retirement accounts + TF.
Lipper shows $10,000 invested in this fund at inception on 2/15/12 to be worth $12,368 today: http://funds.us.reuters.com/US/funds/overview.asp?symbol=SFGIX.OGood year, in 2016. I've been in it for a bit more than 4 years. Is it really up by about 15% in 4 years---or so? Double checking myself.
Thanks. Will research. Only Schwab seems an option for me since minimum is $25000 and I'm not going to plonk that much all at once using MTRAX.@VintageFreak, In the World Allocation space, I would prefer MTOIX, which is available in Fidelity retirement accounts for a $500 minimum + TF according to a test trade I just made.
Kevin
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla