Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

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

Default Denialism is real

2»

Comments

  • edited February 2023
    MikeM said:

    ”Not for the timid.”

    Hell no. Nearest thing to gambling available under the guise of “investing” I know of. Getting burnt badly a few times is probably part of the game. To demonstrate what can happen, following are the M* returns over a bad 3 year stretch for a “5-star” rated gold (miners) mutual fund. Since I presently own the fund, I won’t name it.

    2013 -48.83 - 47.83%

    2014 -15.39%

    2015 -23.14%

    All three were down years. A $100 initial investment would have been worth less than $33.50 at the end of that run, Though I haven’t identified the fund, one will find those numbers quite similar to the M* “category” averages for the years mentioned.
  • edited February 2023
    sma3 said:

    ”I liked the "old" Barron's far better. I could leisurely mull over the articles all weekend … Unfortunately, I can't even get the print edition delivered at my house anymore. Now it is mailed so it doesn't arrive until Tuesday some weeks.”

    Not in a position to compare the “old” and “new” Barron’s. Read the paper edition regularily in the 80s before losing interest. Only in the past 3 or 4 years have I again become a regular reader. But I do find Barron’s better at what it does than any other financial publication I’ve sampled in recent years. I’d guess you’re correct if you believe it was “better” 25+ years ago. I find virtually every print magazine or newspaper I read to fall into that category. Recently resubscribed to The New Yorker. While still worth the price of admission, it doesn’t compare in content to 10 years ago.

    As you might be aware, the Amazon Kindle editions of WSJ & Barron’s are essentially the same as the print editions in terms of stories and photos / art work. Look forward to my Barron’s arriving every Saturday morning. However, there may be some omitted charts / data. The Kindle format doesn’t support such very well. Not an issue for me because so much data can still be pulled up for free online.

    * Those reading Barron’s on a Kindle app may find it necessary to re-format it (using various embedded settings) to make it appear correct. I suspect some don’t read it on Kindle due to not being familiar with all the available settings.
  • @mikeM

    That's the problem. We live on a dead end road ( over a mile long) and as far as I can tell only one other guy gets a physical paper daily

    They go to Florida in the winter so the guy apparently thought driving down here even once a week was too much

    I guess I could try switching to physical NYT and Washington Post but the amount of paper we would have to take to the landfill weekly is overwhelming
  • hank said:


    2013 -48.83%

    2014 -15.39%

    2015 -23.14%

    There's a typo. It should be -47.83%.
  • sma3 said:


    I guess I could try switching to physical NYT and Washington Post but the amount of paper we would have to take to the landfill weekly is overwhelming

    It's not like the old days, when a Sunday paper could clock in at 12 pounds. These days it seems that I can fold the entire Sunday NYTimes.
    https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/heaviest-ever-newspaper

    With the rapid rise in print edition costs (about 25% cumulative over the past two years), I've trimmed back to just the (ever lighter) Sunday paper. It is delivered in two parts (Saturday for fill sections, Sunday for news), so I still get to touch a paper for the whole weekend.

Sign In or Register to comment.