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
Tom Lauricella: What I Learned In 14 Years On The Funds Beat
Well I suppose your one-liner, gratuitous comment is calculated to secure some attention. But it falls miserably short if it is designed to inspire a consensus.
It is far too easy to denigrate a person’s working contributions on the Internet without offering a shred of evidence to support your ungracious and unwarranted remarks.
I do not take exception that you might not like Lauricella’s writings. Diverse opinions are what makes for a vibrant marketplace. But if you are going to bad-mouth a person, as a minimum, you should make the case for your defaming remarks.
Please present your evidence. Why don’t you think he learned much? Have you been a consistent reader of his WSJ articles? I have. Although some were repetitive, I personally learned from his writings. Overall, his columns were uniformly informative.
I’m awaiting your contrary comments and examples of poor writings as are others on MFO.
Recently, Lauricella has focused attention on an issue that you constantly address on MFO: retirement. Surely, you’ve accessed these articles. If not, here are Links to two representative samples of Lauricella’s work:
I would hope these references are helpful to some retirees, but might not apply to your specific situation. Each case is somewhat unique, but all have common elements. Since the columns are prepared for the general public, the glove is never a perfect fit. So adjust and interpret.
Look, Tom Lauricella sure doesn’t need me to defend him. I’m simply annoyed at unsupported scurrilous attacks. Plain and simple, it is character assassination at the lowest levels, and for unspecified purposes.
You are welcome to your unsolicited opinions, but your current comment deserves this repudiation and challenge.
Well I suppose your one-liner, gratuitous comment is calculated to secure some attention. But it falls miserably short if it is designed to inspire a consensus.
Hi yourself, Please list from the OP article what he learned over the last 14 years and we can have a discussion.
I’m still waiting your response to the fair questions I asked. Why do you doubt that Tom Lauricella learned during his long tenure at the WSJ?
I believe anyone learns something every single day whether he intends to or not. I also believe we likely unlearn something everyday although we don’t like to admit our misunderstandings. I see no reason to suspect that Lauricella is so unique that he avoids these learning experiences.
Rather than defending your position, you deploy the debate loser’s tactic of attacking an opponent’s position. That’s an easy task to refute in this instance.
Even the subtitle of the piece notes that “My last bit of advice: Keep the strategy simple, and the costs low”. That’s a lesson learned.
Simply look at the headlines displayed below the title. All three are examples of lessons he learned over the years.
Just about every paragraph in the article recalls some other lessons learned. He talked about the market timing scandal. He reminisced about how “… high-paid stock-fund managers, who have since struggled to post better returns than simple, low-cost index funds” have failed to better serve the investing public. He later recalled the 130/30 mutual fund debacle. These were all learning experiences.
Lauricella concluded with “…. the focus is really on long-term investing. Hopefully this column had the same message.” That too was a learning experience since both earlier investors and financial writers often concentrated on short-term results rather than long-term process consistency.
The two articles that I referenced also demonstrate that, like most of us, Tom Lauricella is a learning machine with almost daily adjustments.
Look, Tom Lauricella was making a final address to the troops in his closure article. In any concluding ceremony, it deserves the respect, the goodwill, and the common courtesy usually accorded to anyone trying to be helpful.
Please explain why you so dislike Tom Lauricella’s writings. They seemed fair and open-minded to me. I’m always anxious to learn. I suspect you are too.
In the investment marketplace, a disagreement is no clarion call for undocumented and uncivil condemnation. It’s reasonable to take opposite sides of the trade and still be friendly and even cordial.
Please explain why you so dislike Tom Lauricella’s writings. They seemed fair and open-minded to me. I’m always anxious to learn. I suspect you are too.
Just my assessment based on your statement that you didn't think he learned much.
I believe that is a faulty judgment on your part. I seriously doubt that any man holds a competitive position for that length of service without improving his skill set through learning and experience. Please convince me otherwise. I am an apt learner.
Well your last post identifies both the depth and the meaningfulness of your analysis of Tom Lauricella's body of work for the WSJ. After all, that's what this exchange is about.
I'll end my submittals now since I have expressed my feelings on the subject. You have had ample opportunity to do the same. I'm prepared to allow the record to stand in its present form.
thin gruel for sure, just read it to see why; won't take long
What is outstanding about him, what have you MJG learned? cf the last decades of Waggoner's columns (he is also retiring). Now there is someone to learn from.
@davidrmoran- Question not allowed. He has clearly stated: "I'm prepared to allow the record to stand in its present form." We're sorry, but once such preparation has been made the subject is closed for further comment.
Thank you for commenting on Davidrmoran’s submittal. It would have completely escaped my notice since I had mentally closed this MFO Discussion exchange.
The request to identify my investment lessons learned and from whom over six decades of financial accumulation is simply not a doable task, even if I wanted to accept the assignment. Sorry, I have no intention to reply to this unrealistic and unnecessary request.
I learn and unlearn every single day; it’s a continuous process. I learn daily from my wife, and from our friends and neighbors. I learn from MFOers, and that even includes Davidrmoran. In his last post, he endorsed John Waggoner as a financial writer, and then noted that Waggoner is retiring from his USA Today job. I did not know that he was leaving his USA engagement.
I too like John Waggoner’s financial wisdom. I have read his material for decades and will continue to do so with his new career adjustment. I believe that both Tom Lauricella and John Waggoner generate splendid columns and have an admirable work ethic. I trust both of them, and do not hesitate recommending them to both neophyte and seasoned investors.
I wish both them well in the next phase of their illustrious careers.
As an aside, I really liked your posting on the Unions topic. It is extremely well written and thoughtful. Nice work!
@MJG: There is nothing on the web, I checked, that indicates John Waggoner is leaving USA Today. I have linked his article for over fifteen years. Regards, Ted
The last Waggoner USA Today article that I could locate was dated in mid-May. I did find a report that interviewed him that claimed a departure from USA Today. Here is the Link:
Comments
Well I suppose your one-liner, gratuitous comment is calculated to secure some attention. But it falls miserably short if it is designed to inspire a consensus.
It is far too easy to denigrate a person’s working contributions on the Internet without offering a shred of evidence to support your ungracious and unwarranted remarks.
I do not take exception that you might not like Lauricella’s writings. Diverse opinions are what makes for a vibrant marketplace. But if you are going to bad-mouth a person, as a minimum, you should make the case for your defaming remarks.
Please present your evidence. Why don’t you think he learned much? Have you been a consistent reader of his WSJ articles? I have. Although some were repetitive, I personally learned from his writings. Overall, his columns were uniformly informative.
I’m awaiting your contrary comments and examples of poor writings as are others on MFO.
Recently, Lauricella has focused attention on an issue that you constantly address on MFO: retirement. Surely, you’ve accessed these articles. If not, here are Links to two representative samples of Lauricella’s work:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/five-myths-about-retirement-1400976997
http://www.wsj.com/articles/for-some-retirement-brings-grief-1414886644?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth
I would hope these references are helpful to some retirees, but might not apply to your specific situation. Each case is somewhat unique, but all have common elements. Since the columns are prepared for the general public, the glove is never a perfect fit. So adjust and interpret.
Look, Tom Lauricella sure doesn’t need me to defend him. I’m simply annoyed at unsupported scurrilous attacks. Plain and simple, it is character assassination at the lowest levels, and for unspecified purposes.
You are welcome to your unsolicited opinions, but your current comment deserves this repudiation and challenge.
Best Wishes.
Please list from the OP article what he learned over the last 14 years and we can have a discussion.
I’m still waiting your response to the fair questions I asked. Why do you doubt that Tom Lauricella learned during his long tenure at the WSJ?
I believe anyone learns something every single day whether he intends to or not. I also believe we likely unlearn something everyday although we don’t like to admit our misunderstandings. I see no reason to suspect that Lauricella is so unique that he avoids these learning experiences.
Rather than defending your position, you deploy the debate loser’s tactic of attacking an opponent’s position. That’s an easy task to refute in this instance.
Even the subtitle of the piece notes that “My last bit of advice: Keep the strategy simple, and the costs low”. That’s a lesson learned.
Simply look at the headlines displayed below the title. All three are examples of lessons he learned over the years.
Just about every paragraph in the article recalls some other lessons learned. He talked about the market timing scandal. He reminisced about how “… high-paid stock-fund managers, who have since struggled to post better returns than simple, low-cost index funds” have failed to better serve the investing public. He later recalled the 130/30 mutual fund debacle. These were all learning experiences.
Lauricella concluded with “…. the focus is really on long-term investing. Hopefully this column had the same message.” That too was a learning experience since both earlier investors and financial writers often concentrated on short-term results rather than long-term process consistency.
The two articles that I referenced also demonstrate that, like most of us, Tom Lauricella is a learning machine with almost daily adjustments.
Look, Tom Lauricella was making a final address to the troops in his closure article. In any concluding ceremony, it deserves the respect, the goodwill, and the common courtesy usually accorded to anyone trying to be helpful.
Please explain why you so dislike Tom Lauricella’s writings. They seemed fair and open-minded to me. I’m always anxious to learn. I suspect you are too.
In the investment marketplace, a disagreement is no clarion call for undocumented and uncivil condemnation. It’s reasonable to take opposite sides of the trade and still be friendly and even cordial.
Best Wishes.
Just my assessment based on your statement that you didn't think he learned much.
I believe that is a faulty judgment on your part. I seriously doubt that any man holds a competitive position for that length of service without improving his skill set through learning and experience. Please convince me otherwise. I am an apt learner.
So, why do you claim he didn't learn much?
And I really do extend you my.........
Best Wishes.
As far as your 'assessment': I defer to the Tony Randall in The Odd Couple:
"Don't 'assessment' it makes an ass out of you ..." (you know the rest).
Well your last post identifies both the depth and the meaningfulness of your analysis of Tom Lauricella's body of work for the WSJ. After all, that's what this exchange is about.
I'll end my submittals now since I have expressed my feelings on the subject. You have had ample opportunity to do the same. I'm prepared to allow the record to stand in its present form.
Best Wishes
What is outstanding about him, what have you MJG learned? cf the last decades of Waggoner's columns (he is also retiring). Now there is someone to learn from.
@davidrmoran- Question not allowed. He has clearly stated: "I'm prepared to allow the record to stand in its present form." We're sorry, but once such preparation has been made the subject is closed for further comment.
Thank you for commenting on Davidrmoran’s submittal. It would have completely escaped my notice since I had mentally closed this MFO Discussion exchange.
The request to identify my investment lessons learned and from whom over six decades of financial accumulation is simply not a doable task, even if I wanted to accept the assignment. Sorry, I have no intention to reply to this unrealistic and unnecessary request.
I learn and unlearn every single day; it’s a continuous process. I learn daily from my wife, and from our friends and neighbors. I learn from MFOers, and that even includes Davidrmoran. In his last post, he endorsed John Waggoner as a financial writer, and then noted that Waggoner is retiring from his USA Today job. I did not know that he was leaving his USA engagement.
I too like John Waggoner’s financial wisdom. I have read his material for decades and will continue to do so with his new career adjustment. I believe that both Tom Lauricella and John Waggoner generate splendid columns and have an admirable work ethic. I trust both of them, and do not hesitate recommending them to both neophyte and seasoned investors.
I wish both them well in the next phase of their illustrious careers.
As an aside, I really liked your posting on the Unions topic. It is extremely well written and thoughtful. Nice work!
Best Wishes.
Regards,
Ted
The last Waggoner USA Today article that I could locate was dated in mid-May. I did find a report that interviewed him that claimed a departure from USA Today. Here is the Link:
http://talkingbiznews.com/1/usa-today-investment-columnist-says-goodbye/
He's still doing his thing operating from another venue.
Best Wishes.
Regards,
Ted