FYI: Foreign investors spent $259.6 billion to acquire, launch, and expand businesses in the United States in 2017, according to numbers released Wednesday by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. That's down from an historic high of $439.5 billion in 2015.
Regards,
Ted
https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/11/news/economy/foreign-direct-investment-2017/index.html

"The companies that run these funds want your money."
Like any service company does. Cramer's CNBC wants him to generate eyeballs, not money directly (that comes from advertisers), but it's the same thing.
"The amount of money they make depends on the size of assets that are under management. That means their biggest incentive is not for an investor to do well."
Cramer seems to be talking about people like himself, paid to draw customers rather than deliver quality service. It's not rare to see fund managers telling their management company to close their fund, because the managers care more about the quality of their service than AUM.
Notice the use of pronouns in the quote. The amount of money the management company makes depends directly on AUM. The amount of money the fund manager makes is a bit more complicated (and usually not disclosed AFAIK).
Several funds incorporate a fulcrum fee. With this fee, a management company takes in more if the fund outperforms and less if the fund underperforms. Presumably some of that is passed along to the fund manager. Lewis had a Barron's article a few months ago on this (cited in another thread), subscription or google search required.
"To make matters worse, mutual funds also charge some of the highest fees in the business."
As a former hedge fund manager, highest fees in the business are something Cramer should know well. Hedge funds usually charge 2% of AUM (way higher then most mutual funds), plus 20% of the gain (with no give back for losing money).
He's just pushing his program (going for eyeballs "under management"): "I figure you can beat the performance of an index fund by picking stocks yourself [but a fund manager can't]. Which is the entire reason I do this show every night." That's from the first video, just 1m long.

For me to own these "low cost" etf's that Cramer speaks of I will need to hold these type of investments in a wrap fee based account.

@Old_Skeet, Actually in this article Cramer is not recommending ETFs. But your comment about having to own ETFs in a wrap account is so strange I had to chime in. You've said this before and it is just not true. You can buy ETFs the same way you would buy individual stocks ($5 at Schwab). And for many ETFs at Schwab there is no buy-charge at all. Can you explain why YOU have to own these in a wrap?
For what it's worth, here is the definition of a wrap fee per Investopdia. It has nothing to do with purchasing an ETF on your own accord:

A wrap fee is a comprehensive charge levied by an investment manager or investment advisor to a client for providing a bundle of services. Such services can include investment advice, investment research and brokerage services.

Hello dear MFO everyone. I rarely post here (the tone is tricky to engage with) but I read often and am grateful for the many perspectives on financial health and responsibility that many share. So for that: a big thank you.
I just wanted to respond to Catch and Hank's note about people not having financial knowledge or desire to gain the knowledge. I grew up in a poor family in the Midwest. Both my parents worked hard but having money to pay the bills seemed to be what took up most of their time. Investing in the stock market wasn't remotely possible for my family which means there was almost no conversation about investing and managing monies. Flash forward and I was a young writer living in New York -- my "day job" was working as a temp ("word processing" -- remember that nostalgic term?). One of my temp assignments took me to an investment banking firm called The Portfolio Group which was a subsidiary of the old Chemical Bank -- 57th floor of Rockefeller Plaza. They invested money for wealthy individual and foundations. This was the late 1980s. I was just a guy doing word processing around a lot of conversations about millions of dollars. Some of the portfolio managers noticed that I was a curious guy (they knew I was an artist) and offered to tutor me about the stock market. They even convinced me to open an IRA, to fully fund it (it was $2,000 max in those days, I think) -- which I did and continued to do. They gave me articles to read, engaged me in conversations, and made me feel like I was someone who had the right to know more about financial/investing opportunities. That was all I needed -- someone taking an interest in me and my financial future. I've been invested through Fidelity for nearly 30 years now. And that was last temp job I ever had. I've made my living as a writer ever since (which means financially there have been some incredible years and some awful years). It also means I've been self-employed all these years and so my retirement is fully self-funded. One reason I can still do my work is because I invested fairly young and never stopped. But I needed help to not be intimidated. I was lucky to have gotten that help. I just wanted to point out that some folks come from families and places where the very idea of participating in the stock market is not possible. It isn't just laziness or disinterest. (And if anyone happens to read this from The Portfolio Group: thank you!)
Sorry for the long post. I'll now go silent again! Thank you for reading.

Morn'in @hank
Agree with your overview. I have not watched or read Cramer since the market melt; and only then were a few days off and on during the market melt of 2008. I did not watch "his" show, but portions when he was at the desk with others in the morning.
His linked write here shows me his appears to be in a disconnect with today. I also won't argue that there remain too many funds that over charge and under perform.
But, this circumstance is upon the backs of individual investors to be at least a little bit curious and studious to discover fees and performance, but it on their own or via a managed account.
A few thoughts, somewhat along this thread line.
However, it remains that the individual investor of the type likely found here are few and far in between, of all individual investors; IMHO. Yes, there are millions who hold monies in IRA, 401k or 403b accounts, but my experience is that a very small percentage have much knowledge or desire to gain the knowledge. My current personal reference point is from questions I still receive.......as to, what do you think about this or that? These family and friends don't know anyone else who has had "their face" in the markets for 40 years.
One question from 2 months ago went like this, no quotes: My adviser in Ann Arbor thinks I should sell some or all (she couldn't remember) of my healthcare holdings. Oh, when did you switch advisers and why. A few years ago; because a friend felt she did a good job. Okay. What is the percentage of your healthcare holdings related to "all" of your investments? I don't know. Why does she feel you should sell? I don't know. Give me a list of your investment holdings by category (no dollar values for your privacy) and we can review your market positions. Okay. Still no follow up.
I suspect this is typical. Not to point a finger towards an adviser; just that too many individuals do not have any clues into the world of money.
As to the accounts type that @Old_Skeet mentioned, needing a brokerage wrap account for purchase of etf's; I will state that I/we at this house are spoiled (from our own choice) as to wide open accounts from 40 years ago into today. Old_Skeet's background of holdings and where they evolved from, over many years, is a different circumstance than we deal with at our house; and his choices will be much different from ours. As an investor, he is in a good place monetary, I suspect. Hats off to you, Old_Skeet for keeping your investment mind to the wheel.
Relative to our Fidelity brokerage accounts; we have access to just about whatever and from whomever without having to deal with wrap account fees. These brokerage accounts have always been "self directed", although one can have a managed account (fee) at Fido.
Strictly from an etf view, Fido has 81 no commission etf's. I imagine this is more than enough for anyone to "build their own", eh? Five standard marketplace equity/bond I-shares etf's have an expense cost of between .04 and .11%. Damn, this is just about free, eh? Fido also offers index (equity/bond) funds with similarly small expense cost.
http://etfdb.com/type/commission-free/fidelity/
Yes, I too; don't quite get Cramer's take on etf's and A.U.M. thing.
I view the AUM chase as having to stay current and in the game. Hell, this is marketing, yes? So, new products are introduced. The percentage investment houses obtain from AUM is fully understandable from a business stand point.
I still call this the "K-Mart" model from 50 years ago, at least relative to large scale retail.
Sell a boat load of product from a tiny markup to generate volume and pull in customer traffic. Bingo. Everyone wins, eh?
The model remains in place today with the likes of Walmart and Amazon, to name two.
The wrap account and input from those who either use or know others who use such an account could be an interesting thread.
I've always been averse to "fees". Several folks I knew in the mid-'80's continued to look at investing with Merrill-Lynch and their funds. I recall the "load" was 7.75%. Ouch! Yes, Fido had loads on some funds then, too; (I have a list in a file) but I recall the most common load for their best funds was 3%. These disappeared as Fido became more aggressive with obtaining AUM.
'Course, the obvious is that these loads + taxes + inflation can pretty much wipe out a gain from a fund, eh?
I apply the same thought to a wrap account, although one is supposedly obtaining some form of investment expertise from an adviser. Better, I suppose in the long run; than not investing at all. The worse case could perhaps be a break even scenario.
Take care,
Catch

BEWARE ...
For me to own these "low cost" etf's that Cramer speaks of I will need to hold these type of investments in a wrap fee based account. The fee on wrap accounts that I have looked at charge about about 1% (and up) plus there are the fees on the "low cost" etf's themselves that has to be considered to compute total expense cost. This puts the total cost at about 1.25% and in some cases more. Currently, there is no wrap fee on my accounts and Morningstar estimates my total expense ratio at 0.75% on all my mutual funds when combined. So, for me, to go Cramer's "low cost route" I'll actually wind up paying more by about $5,000.00 (perhaps even more) annually over what I currently pay. Seems, to me, Cramer forget to mention that many firms now charge wrap fees on accounts that hold these low cost etf's that he speaks of. Nope, for me, I plan to continue to hold my American Funds plus some others as I have now done for many, many years in no fee based accounts. Plus, I can do net asset value (nav) exchanges between funds I own inside their fund family without any charges.
For me ... After looking at this a couple of times over the past couple of years I'm still thinking I've got the low cost deal. Pehaps, you do as well?

FYI: (If link doesn't work, Google This Floating-Rate Fund Rises To The Top)
American Beacon’s Sound Point Floating Rate Income fund takes an unusual approach to investing in bonds that will protect investors from rising rates.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/this-floating-rate-fund-rises-to-the-top-1531510823
M* Snapshot SOUAX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/SOUAX/quote.html

FYI: (If link doesn't work. Google 2018 Mid-Year Roundtable: Good News For Stockpickers)
The broad market could struggle in the second half, but our investment experts see plenty of bargains in energy, media, retailing, and tech.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/2018-mid-year-roundtable-good-news-for-stockpickers-1531516079

what is risk parity ?

I just stay with PRWCX even though it has been closed to new investors for some time. BTW it has been doing well among the asset allocation funds this year.

It’s hard for me to explain that fund’s success against similar funds. I’ve puzzled over it for years. Defies all logic. Keep expecting it to “fall off the wagon” some year - but it never does. :)
Own a modest chunk of the fund and have been a big fan of TRP for the 25 years I’ve with them ...
Still puzzling ...

Pretty much agree with @Catch22 ’s graphic illustration and @MikeM ‘s wry humor. :)
Well, here we are half way into the year and HSGFX is having one of it’s “better” years with a gain of +1.12% while sporting a 1.3% ER - which ain’t exactly cheap. Over 10 years the fund is still down around 6.5% annually. There must be some cash equivalency instruments that would have matched that 1.2% YTD for lower ER - but with less excitement.
Catch is correct that there’s a tradeoff between risk exposure and return. All depends on one’s situation. Don’t know if the board still draws youngsters in their early cumulative years (ages 20-40). Haven’t heard from them lately. But those folks having a 40-60 year investment time horizon should be all or nearly 100% in low-fee aggressive growth funds. For those of us over 70 and well into retirement & drawdown it’s a bit more complicated.
One added thought: If you consider balanced funds to be among your more risky assets, than there may be a bit of room for some of the more exotic hedge-like instruments for added diversification - allowing for the fact that, as Mike says, they’re high fee vehicles. I’ve got a small foothold in Price’s new TMSRX which certainly looks like a hedge fund on paper. Yet Price bills it as an “income” fund. Their definition agrees with its placement on their risk/return spectrum where it’s listed as comparable to old faithful RPSIX for anticipated risk/return. I’m currently “underwhelmed” by TMSRX’s performance - but, to its credit, it often runs opposite stocks, rising on down days for equities also moving in the reverse direction on up days. Anxious to read their first fund report which hasn’t been released yet.

Geez, today; more than ever, one can build their own (risk parity), eh?
Build your own "risk parity" is readily available via etf's or managed funds, if one chooses to be fully aggressive via whichever.
What ya want ??? ETF category list
From a male perspective, what one builds depends how much exposure to one's gonads on a chopping block is "enough".
'Course, you may want to have your own benchmark, yes?
I'll offer only these two that travel the 50-70% equity/bond mix:
--- FBALX with a 15 year annualized total return of 8.4%
--- FPURX with a 15 year annualized total return of 8.1%
what is risk parity ?
In the end (choose your own time frame), one will have their very good and mediocre performance years. Being in the right place at the right time with particular holdings, lends to the good and bad periods.
Sidenote: This house could have obtained a much larger return in the few years after the market melt, if we'd only known the market burn was really finished, well except for the ongoing burn(s) in Europe. But, we also escaped the market melt; so our base money starting point was higher than those who sold too much near the bottoms.
Good fortune with your ongoing, being in the right place at the right time with your investments; as well as attempting to determine what a reversion to the mean really is today.
Regards,
Catch

FYI: Ray Dalio may be slowing down, but the investment strategy he popularized is just getting started.
Bloomberg News reported recently that Dalio, founder of the world’s largest hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates LP, will spread the firm’s ownership among more employees and give them a say about management and governance.
Dalio founded Bridgewater in 1975, but he will most likely be remembered for the All Weather fund the firm launched more than two decades later in 1996. That fund was the first to offer a strategy that has come to be known as “risk parity.”
Investors may not yet be familiar with risk parity, but that’s about to change. Putnam Investments introduced a risk parity mutual fund last year. Robo-adviser Wealthfront Inc. launched one this year and added it in February to accounts with more than $100,000 in taxable assets, raking in $780 million for the fund so far, according to Morningstar. More funds are likely to follow.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-11/ray-dalio-s-risk-parity-strategy-comes-to-the-masses

I don't think Vintage Freak had any bad intentions when he used the word "shyster." I know the word can have negative ethnic connotations, but sometimes you can tell by context whether someone is being nasty or not. The fighting here seems like a big to-do over nothing. Moreover, there has been some debate about the etymology of the word and whether it was ever meant to be offensive originally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shyster
Ironically, Minerd is actually a devout Christian: podbay.fm/show/728070854/e/1388697240

Anyhow, MRESX: Look at those dividends. I'd want to hold something that would give me a more reliable, predictable div. Never had any luck with R.E. funds, anyhow. Any R.E. I currently own is decided upon by my fund managers. Currently, it's just 2.85% of all my stocks.

Count me as among the ignorant who might have used “shyster” innocently. (But I’ve committed much bigger blunders along life’s way). Fortunately, the law makes clear distinctions in guilt based on intent, and I firmly believe there was no intent here to insult anyone or any group. I do like being made aware of the sensitivities of different religions, social groups, nationalities, sexual orientations, etc. Once aware of those sensitivities, I try very hard to respect them.
I remember when as a young lad I thought the Confederate flag a stately symbol. Displaying it in southern states 50-60 years ago was seen as a tribute to loved ones lost in battle and a symbol of one’s love for his homeland, Over time the connotations thus associated changed drastically (Language is a living organism - and symbols are a form of language.) So when I see some jerk driving around in northern Michigan today flying a couple confederate flags from his Harley or high-lift PU, I know darned well it isn’t intended as a tribute to a fallen loved one or as a loving symbol of his homeland. It’s a despicable display of hate and a needless provocation. Such is the state of man.

@larryB, is this the connotation you are refering to, anti-semetic? I thought the word was just a reference to a shady lawyer and generalized for anyone else who fit that bill. Frankly I had no idea it had an anti-semetic reference to it (I would bet most people don't). I don't take shame for not knowing the reference, but now that I do, I for one will not use this phrase again. Thanks.
Is 'Shyster' Anti-Semitic?
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/almID/900005387204/?slreturn=20180612171637

Yes, this is an investment area; and you already have money invested in this area if you have any broad based equity holdings.
A little something for your curious brain cells.
https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/07/americas-new-robot-geography/564155/

I've periodically noted here regarding bond yields and the yield curve of U.S. Treasury issues.
The curve continues to flatten among 30, 10 and 5 year issues.
This morning, reflecting some of yesterdays actions find 10 basis points between the 30 and 10 year, and 11 basis points between the 10 and 5 year issues.
---
30 year at 2.95%
10 year at 2.85%
5 year at 2.74%
As this time is different remains, since the market melt of almost 10 years ago; does the yield curve spread still provide meaningful indicators. One must think so, yes?
Big money is apparently still supporting long term bonds.....the pension funds, etc.; whomever is buying.
Well, just a blip of what is visible in part of the bond arena.
Take care,
Catch

I disagree vehimently with the thesis here. Perhaps it’s because I remember back a decade ago when the prevailing question on financial discussion boards wasn’t “Why do people hold so much cash?” but rather “Are money market funds safe enough to invest in?” I’m afraid current investment climate affects our perceptions of what’s safe / appropriate for different individuals and what is not.
Here’s an interesting line: “If a client has US$100 million, why would they need US$15 million or US$20 million in cash?” Bailin asks. “They should have it fully invested ....
I’d turn that question around and ask: “If an investor has $100 million, why would he/she expose that nice fortune to any market risk at all?”

Here's the full thread ...
https://twitter.com/svrnco/status/1010309418905407490