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.
Come on @johnN . Get your s@*^ together.............except for one etf, this stuff is in Europe. Fidelity doesn't even provide internal linkage for info about these tickers. Will you please read/review what you think is of value here before wasting your and others time??????
Obviously written from a UK perspective. In the US, internet savings accounts are almost always practical for taxable accounts. For IRAs, less so, though I find that MMFs like FZDXX at Fidelity ($10K to open, $2K to maintain in an IRA) and VMMXX at Vanguard serve just fine.
Note that the reported 7.93% return in 2018 for MINT must be an unhedged return. If you're anticipating a no-plan Brexit (whether via Corbyn as suggested in the article, or via May), then any unhedged investment seems like a winner for those in the UK .
As I'm sure most have noted, John seems to post just for the sake of posting, whether or not the material is either useful or even intelligent. Much of the time it's painfully evident that he doesn't thoroughly read the material, much less understand the more arcane implications.
@Old_Joe: Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Do a little soul searching and ask yourself Old _Joe what have I contribution to MFO besides bashing other members.
You guys, isn’t @johnN not a native English speaker? I think yes....why don’t you guys go post on a French language investing site and see how you feel? Doesn’t excuse not reading/interpreting a linked article correctly, but I have seen some snarkiness about his word choices/grammar recently....I could go through with a red pen and correct spelling and usage errors in many a post here.
And about the politics that are in just about EVERY post anymore (save for the no comment link posts by Ted)...I voted for Trump but STRONGLY dislike him, but no one is allowed to disagree with the board cognoscenti. THIS is why mostly conservatives watch Fox and mostly Democrats watch CNN or MSNBC, no one likes to see the other side and acknowledge that some things the other side says may be right or valid.
I enjoy this forum as it is strongly mutual fund related in a world that has moved more and more away from mutual funds, but let’s get back to investing talk. I KNOW politics and investing intersect at many points, and talking politics is therefore salient to investing at times, but we don’t even talk about recent buys or sells anymore. I have some OEF-only accounts so mutual fund investing is important to me.
I know I’m a nobody, but this has been bothering me for a while now. Thanks for all everyone does here....can’t we play in the sandbox a little nicer? #rantover
@ Catch22: What exactly is “s@*^” ? Hope you’re feeling better. Recall you were recovering from some health issues a while back. Regards, hank
Re Europe - I wish we had more stuff of quality from over there to read and compare with our own markets. Occasionally come across some good stories in the FT or Times of London thru my Kindle subscriptions. As I’ve noted, it’s hard to link those from the web due to their paywall.
I do know Europe is facing huge outflows from actively managed funds as is the U.S. One very large fund company was having severe problems as short sellers were driving its price down (month ago). Can’t find it today. Google is becoming useless. Saturates reader with ads instead of good objective research.
Also read a recent commentary somewhere to the effect that U.K. equity valuations are way below fair value (even after Brexit) due to hysteria on the part of investors. For a younger person willing to speculate, might be a play there.
Thanks for the feedback guys. Old habits are hard to break. I’ll give the Duck a quack or two.
What I see at Google is that after the obvious ads which leap out at first, there’s a series of other websites they say answer your query (Yahoo or U.S. News for example). Rarely do those stories actually pertain to the information you’re seeking - but these (secondary) sites also seem loaded to the hilt with ads - mostly annoying.
What I wonder is this: If Google directs me to a Yahoo story and I than click on an ad served-up along with that story, does Google also receive some kind of remuneration from the advertiser? That’s the only way this makes sense to me. Many European countries are far ahead of us in at least trying to correct the abuses. One (I think England) has floated the idea of a “data tax” on those who profit by accumulating and selling our data. The proceeds would be used to enforce some basic rules re privacy and security of users’ personal data.
I've been thinking about your comments since reading them the other day, because I feel that much of what you said was both interesting and accurate. On your major points-
"You guys, isn’t @johnN not a native English speaker? I think yes....why don’t you guys go post on a French language investing site and see how you feel? Doesn’t excuse not reading/interpreting a linked article correctly, but I have seen some snarkiness about his word choices/grammar recently....I could go through with a red pen and correct spelling and usage errors in many a post here."
• I agree completely.
"And about the politics that are in just about EVERY post anymore (save for the no comment link posts by Ted)...I voted for Trump but STRONGLY dislike him, but no one is allowed to disagree with the board cognoscenti. THIS is why mostly conservatives watch Fox and mostly Democrats watch CNN or MSNBC, no one likes to see the other side and acknowledge that some things the other side says may be right or valid."
• I also agree here. Even though I grudgingly voted for Hillary, I think that there are a number of things that the Trump outfit has right, for example, our overall relationship with China, and the efforts to stabilize the relationship with North Korea. The N Korea effort may come to naught, but at least it's worth trying, and certainly nothing else has come close to working so far.
• As far as news or editorial opinion, I give much weight to The Economist and PBS, and equal time to the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, hoping to achieve some sort of balance there. (That's easier said than done.) As far as Fox, CNN or MSNBC: a pox on all of them!
"I know I’m a nobody, but this has been bothering me for a while now. Thanks for all everyone does here....can’t we play in the sandbox a little nicer? #rantover "
• You are as much of a "somebody" as anyone else here, and your opinions are just as valid (or not) as anyone else's. There's certainly room for disagreement on various issues, but no excuse for incivility.
Please don't apply your red pen to this, as I'm sure it would be embarrassing for me.
(1) ... but we don’t even talk about recent buys or sells anymore.... “
(2) “... can’t we play in the sandbox a little nicer?”
Thanks for the comments @Graust. I won’t even try to defend the politics that seeps in. It’s indefensible - but also hard to avoid in the current political climate.
(1) As to fewer trades, I’ve noticed it too. Couple thoughts: The group of perhaps 25-35 regulars who post often are growing older and more conservative. Heck, I can think of 2 or 3 who’ve gotten out of the market completely in the past six months. They still have a great deal to offer here - but trading funds isn’t where they are anymore. Other oldsters like myself are still investing in the market, but trading a lot less as a means of reducing risk. My most aggressive holdings nowadays tend to be balanced funds (the more boring the better). And I’ve stopped making speculative bets on beaten-up sectors because there’s a very real chance I wouldn’t live long enough to see them come to fruition.
Another factor - We’ve just experienced a 10-20% stock market correction (depending on the index). That experience has, I think, dulled the “animal spirits” a bit. Folks after something like that become more risk averse for a while afterwards. That may be another reason why there’s less talk about buying / selling than 6 months or a year ago. There are some nice exceptions. @Puddenhead posts occasionally about trading for quick profits. I always enjoy his “longneck” ramblings. And @Old_Skeet does a real nice job weekly dissecting his approach and telling you which sectors he likes or dislikes and why. Lest I forget, @MikeM too is always looking for an edge and mentions his buys / sells from time to time. No doubt there are others I’m omitting. Apologies to them.
(2) Re the sandbox - Unfortunately, it just takes one child peeing in it and throwing sand to ruin it for everyone.
>> no one is allowed to disagree with the board cognoscenti. THIS is why mostly conservatives watch Fox and mostly Democrats watch CNN or MSNBC, no one likes to see the other side and acknowledge that some things the other side says may be right or valid.
Come on. Can we stay substantive rather than this automatic bothesidesism about imaginary validity? Disagree away, please, please --- with substantiation. There are no board cognoscenti I can see. If you feel intimidated, just come back strong with substance. This see-my-side wishing is weak --- let us all believe in marketplace of ideas and all that. Much weaker is your broad-brushing of Democrats! I, not a Democrat, can see the wisdom of Trump admin positions on Chinese IP theft (for one example), or can be a strong advocate for the death penalty w better screening QC (for another example), without ever needing to watch Fox (which I do sometimes even as it's almost uniformly imbalanced and unfair distorted paranoid bullshit) or MSNBC (which usually has smarter and better-informed experts no matter what 'side' you take).
Please try to stay on substance and content and data and expertise --- validity, as you say --- rather than dismissing the problem as some inability to see the side of another. Or give concrete examples.
Comments
Will you please read/review what you think is of value here before wasting your and others time??????
Note that the reported 7.93% return in 2018 for MINT must be an unhedged return. If you're anticipating a no-plan Brexit (whether via Corbyn as suggested in the article, or via May), then any unhedged investment seems like a winner for those in the UK .
With this, I hope he keeps posting because I do, at times, find some reading value in them. With this one not so much so.
And, to his credit, most of the stuff he does post is not firewall protected.
Regards,
Ted
And about the politics that are in just about EVERY post anymore (save for the no comment link posts by Ted)...I voted for Trump but STRONGLY dislike him, but no one is allowed to disagree with the board cognoscenti. THIS is why mostly conservatives watch Fox and mostly Democrats watch CNN or MSNBC, no one likes to see the other side and acknowledge that some things the other side says may be right or valid.
I enjoy this forum as it is strongly mutual fund related in a world that has moved more and more away from mutual funds, but let’s get back to investing talk. I KNOW politics and investing intersect at many points, and talking politics is therefore salient to investing at times, but we don’t even talk about recent buys or sells anymore. I have some OEF-only accounts so mutual fund investing is important to me.
I know I’m a nobody, but this has been bothering me for a while now. Thanks for all everyone does here....can’t we play in the sandbox a little nicer? #rantover
Re Europe - I wish we had more stuff of quality from over there to read and compare with our own markets. Occasionally come across some good stories in the FT or Times of London thru my Kindle subscriptions. As I’ve noted, it’s hard to link those from the web due to their paywall.
I do know Europe is facing huge outflows from actively managed funds as is the U.S. One very large fund company was having severe problems as short sellers were driving its price down (month ago). Can’t find it today. Google is becoming useless. Saturates reader with ads instead of good objective research.
Also read a recent commentary somewhere to the effect that U.K. equity valuations are way below fair value (even after Brexit) due to hysteria on the part of investors. For a younger person willing to speculate, might be a play there.
What I see at Google is that after the obvious ads which leap out at first, there’s a series of other websites they say answer your query (Yahoo or U.S. News for example). Rarely do those stories actually pertain to the information you’re seeking - but these (secondary) sites also seem loaded to the hilt with ads - mostly annoying.
What I wonder is this: If Google directs me to a Yahoo story and I than click on an ad served-up along with that story, does Google also receive some kind of remuneration from the advertiser? That’s the only way this makes sense to me. Many European countries are far ahead of us in at least trying to correct the abuses. One (I think England) has floated the idea of a “data tax” on those who profit by accumulating and selling our data. The proceeds would be used to enforce some basic rules re privacy and security of users’ personal data.
I've been thinking about your comments since reading them the other day, because I feel that much of what you said was both interesting and accurate. On your major points-
"You guys, isn’t @johnN not a native English speaker? I think yes....why don’t you guys go post on a French language investing site and see how you feel? Doesn’t excuse not reading/interpreting a linked article correctly, but I have seen some snarkiness about his word choices/grammar recently....I could go through with a red pen and correct spelling and usage errors in many a post here."
• I agree completely.
"And about the politics that are in just about EVERY post anymore (save for the no comment link posts by Ted)...I voted for Trump but STRONGLY dislike him, but no one is allowed to disagree with the board cognoscenti. THIS is why mostly conservatives watch Fox and mostly Democrats watch CNN or MSNBC, no one likes to see the other side and acknowledge that some things the other side says may be right or valid."
• I also agree here. Even though I grudgingly voted for Hillary, I think that there are a number of things that the Trump outfit has right, for example, our overall relationship with China, and the efforts to stabilize the relationship with North Korea. The N Korea effort may come to naught, but at least it's worth trying, and certainly nothing else has come close to working so far.
• As far as news or editorial opinion, I give much weight to The Economist and PBS, and equal time to the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, hoping to achieve some sort of balance there. (That's easier said than done.) As far as Fox, CNN or MSNBC: a pox on all of them!
"I know I’m a nobody, but this has been bothering me for a while now. Thanks for all everyone does here....can’t we play in the sandbox a little nicer? #rantover "
• You are as much of a "somebody" as anyone else here, and your opinions are just as valid (or not) as anyone else's. There's certainly room for disagreement on various issues, but no excuse for incivility.
Please don't apply your red pen to this, as I'm sure it would be embarrassing for me.
(1) As to fewer trades, I’ve noticed it too. Couple thoughts: The group of perhaps 25-35 regulars who post often are growing older and more conservative. Heck, I can think of 2 or 3 who’ve gotten out of the market completely in the past six months. They still have a great deal to offer here - but trading funds isn’t where they are anymore. Other oldsters like myself are still investing in the market, but trading a lot less as a means of reducing risk. My most aggressive holdings nowadays tend to be balanced funds (the more boring the better). And I’ve stopped making speculative bets on beaten-up sectors because there’s a very real chance I wouldn’t live long enough to see them come to fruition.
Another factor - We’ve just experienced a 10-20% stock market correction (depending on the index). That experience has, I think, dulled the “animal spirits” a bit. Folks after something like that become more risk averse for a while afterwards. That may be another reason why there’s less talk about buying / selling than 6 months or a year ago. There are some nice exceptions. @Puddenhead posts occasionally about trading for quick profits. I always enjoy his “longneck” ramblings. And @Old_Skeet does a real nice job weekly dissecting his approach and telling you which sectors he likes or dislikes and why. Lest I forget, @MikeM too is always looking for an edge and mentions his buys / sells from time to time. No doubt there are others I’m omitting. Apologies to them.
(2) Re the sandbox - Unfortunately, it just takes one child peeing in it and throwing sand to ruin it for everyone.
Come on. Can we stay substantive rather than this automatic bothesidesism about imaginary validity? Disagree away, please, please --- with substantiation. There are no board cognoscenti I can see. If you feel intimidated, just come back strong with substance. This see-my-side wishing is weak --- let us all believe in marketplace of ideas and all that. Much weaker is your broad-brushing of Democrats! I, not a Democrat, can see the wisdom of Trump admin positions on Chinese IP theft (for one example), or can be a strong advocate for the death penalty w better screening QC (for another example), without ever needing to watch Fox (which I do sometimes even as it's almost uniformly imbalanced and unfair distorted paranoid bullshit) or MSNBC (which usually has smarter and better-informed experts no matter what 'side' you take).
Please try to stay on substance and content and data and expertise --- validity, as you say --- rather than dismissing the problem as some inability to see the side of another. Or give concrete examples.