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.
On one of his points: Buy low cost index funds -- sure, paying less means you keep more, etc., etc., etc. But how does that address the allocation problem, which drives a great deal of one's returns? I generally pay the active management fee for managers to allocate based on valuation (including to cash), not to pick stocks based on their assessment of the next big thing. I don't adhere to the "model portfolio" model.
I generally pay the active management fee for managers to allocate based on valuation (including to cash), not to pick stocks based on their assessment of the next big thing. I don't adhere to the "model portfolio" model.
If this were a successful strategy, wouldn't actively managed funds outperform low cost index funds?
Comments
On one of his points: Buy low cost index funds -- sure, paying less means you keep more, etc., etc., etc. But how does that address the allocation problem, which drives a great deal of one's returns? I generally pay the active management fee for managers to allocate based on valuation (including to cash), not to pick stocks based on their assessment of the next big thing. I don't adhere to the "model portfolio" model.