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.
I have to agree that investing in mutual funds seems to have a generational divide with younger people not so interested in funds, instead preferring the fast bucks that possibly come with trading individual equities. I'm in my late 30's now (geezer city!) and my peers who have money to put into the markets have generally preferred to trade individual equities instead of buying long-term investments such as mutual funds. They're overconfident and think that they're good enough to get in and get out at the right time to make profits. To which I answer, "good luck with that". Please note that Yours Truly is an exception as I prefer mutual funds, although I do own a few individual equities.
My parents have owned shares of FCNTX for over 30 years and are really happy with their returns over these 3 decades.
Totally agree. Many college graduates have large college loan debt - often $50-100K. Finding jobs in this pandemic is not easy. Our companies hired a few this year but that is less than the attrition rates due to retirement and others.
Younger generations are very different than the older ones. Some don't invest because our company offers only low cost index funds, even with generous company match. Guess our priorities on investing are quite different.
Some don't invest because our company offers only low cost index funds, even with generous company match. Guess our priorities on investing are quite different.
Young employees have told you this?
Are they debt free?
I would pay down debt before investing in anything.
This young man who worked for me for several years, was transferred elsewhere. Delay gratification and saving for the future are difficult concept for the younger generations. Yes, he got debt from college loan. Other young workers tend to balance to do both of paying down the debt while putting enough to get maximum company match. They also increase their annual contribution from their bonus.
This young man who worked for me for several years, was transferred elsewhere. Delay gratification and saving for the future are difficult concept for the younger generations. Yes, he got debt from college loan. Other young workers tend to balance to do both of paying down the debt while putting enough to get maximum company match. They also increase their annual contribution from their bonus.
So we're only talking about one person you knew?
And other young people you know seem to have prudent plans.
My parents were the youngest children in their families. They were born in 1917 and 1920. And they raised me, their youngest child, with a profound skepticism for the rants of old people.
What my children would like to talk about can't be discussed here since off topic is on vacation. But they do appreciate that they aren't saddled with debt.
I haven’t listened, Interesting that he is making the rounds this month, rarely see anything about him. Evidently he has a great track record. Reading the Bloomberg article reminded me of Fidelity Leverage fund (FLVCX) which killed from about 2002 to 2007 and then exploded! But that is actually totally unrelated to Danoff.
>> profound skepticism for the rants of old people.
if calling the turning-down when young of free money 'stupid' is ranting, oh, I got more
You don't know why they turned it down. Nor do you how long they turned it down. Then, without any data, you speculate that failure to participate should be a condition of employment. And at the very least, these people should be monitored by the HR department.
Nothing was stipulated about how long they turned it down. As a retired parent w adult children (who are savers) I just have a thing about passing up free money when young.
Sven posted:
>> Some don't invest because our company offers only low cost index funds, even with generous company match.
Ital mine. This seems remarkable to me, and I bet it would to about anyone. No, HR should not track. It's a free country for being stupid. (manifestly.) I wonder how they got the job in the first place.
I forgot my /sarc tag! . (manifestly. I wonder how they got the job in the first place.
Buffett said: "We look for three things when we hire people. We look for intelligence, we look for initiative or energy, and we look for integrity. And if they don't have the latter, the first two will kill you, because if you're going to get someone without integrity, you want them lazy and dumb.
@WABAC - no I don't have any hard data to back up my opinion. What information I have is mostly anecdotal relative to those who are down searching to make the big score either through day trading or the lottery.
More information. The young employee I was referring to likes to day trading for penny stocks. No doubt it was exciting to make quick bucks here and there. Putting money into a 401(k) account and investing in index funds was not his vision of saving for the future.
I read somewhere that young people don't reach mental maturity until 25 years old. I took accounting in high school and understood the power of compounding in my saving account. Like I mentioned earlier I had others who save diligently in their 401(k) and pay off their college loans at the same time.
I had invested with Will Danoff in the past. Very consistent performance from year to year. Even during the tech bubble Contra fund still managed to loss less. Just wish Fidelity let him to close the fund much earlier at smaller asset. On this aspect, T. Rowe Price is much better that is where I invest for a good % of retirement $.
Fidelity used to be better at closing funds. At least it gave the appearance of trying.
FCNTX was closed from April 3, 1998 to Dec 15, 2000 (it had around $35B AUM at the time). Fidelity closed the fund again from April 28, 2006 to Dec 15, 2008. (It had around $65B, and Danoff was also managing New Insights with another $10B). Fidelity also closed New Insights on April 28, 2006, but reopened this smaller fund earlier, on Oct 31, 2007.
The only Fidelity fund I can recall being closed when it was still small was New Millennium (FMILX) . Three and a half years after it launched at the end of 1992 it closed, as promised, for a decade.
@msf, you have good memory. I invested with Contra fund in the 1990's and it was done well consistently. It was the rapid growth that concerned me at that time.
Persistence with a winner pays, of course, most of all in hindsight ---
If any of us had stuck w Danoff starting fully 3y into his career, and compared w peers who had instead (for good reasons) gone and stayed w SP500, D&C Growth, TRP Blue Chip, Fido ditto, Jensen, Sequoia, Yacktman, sundry Vanguard offerings, etc etc, we would have come out at least tens of thou ahead, if not much more.
Not sure anyone has had a career like Danoff over 30y.
Oh, and Tillinghast beats all of those also from summer 1993. What a pair those two are. You just gotta have faith (as one of my kids always reminds me when our team is behind).
Right. Sarcasm. Where have I heard that before? I think we're far past Dostoyevsky's definition.
Nothing was stipulated about how long they turned it down. As a retired parent w adult children (who are savers) I just have a thing about passing up free money when young.
Right. Nothing was stipulated about why they turned it down either. Student loans. Medical bills. Aging parents. Whatever. We're past facts.
Sven posted:
>> Some don't invest because our company offers only low cost index funds, even with generous company match.
Ital mine. This seems remarkable to me,
Sven is talking about one guy. One guy.
and I bet it would to about anyone.
Small sample sizes and logical fallacies.
When I was in positions to hire people I needed specific skill sets that had absolutely nothing to do with coping with investment decisions.
When the retirement plan came up our advice was to pick the targeted date fund if they didn't want to hassle with the research. If they chose not to participate we didn't bug them because it was no picnic finding their skill sets to begin with. And we didn't think it was appropriate to dig into their personal decision.
No, HR should not track. It's a free country for being stupid. (manifestly.)
OK. Ignore what you wrote. I should just assume sarcasm from you.
I wonder how they got the job in the first place.
Because they can do things you can't. It's just that simple.
@WABAC - no I don't have any hard data to back up my opinion. What information I have is mostly anecdotal relative to those who are down searching to make the big score either through day trading or the lottery.
OK. Thanks for that.
Maybe I'm stretching the bounds of "other investing." But I do prefer to have a more accurate grasp of that large economic factor known as millennials.
Going back to the original post, and the article cited, Danoff doesn't mention gambling. What he does talk about is the crowded competitive space he finds himself in.
The attention span of young people is only one of a number of factors he mentions. The Robinhood anxiety headline seems like click bait to me. The headline could have as easily read he has index anxiety.
The way investment information -- or news -- is packaged and sold is also of interest to me.
You could safely assume no one seriously proposes HR should track employees in that regard.
If you think hiring is simply based on what people can do that others cannot, yours would be a tough place to work, for anyone. (Also if some is the same as one.)
You could safely assume no one seriously proposes HR should track employees in that regard.
It was what you wrote. I don't take you seriously anymore.
I can only guess why people say things they don't mean. I don't think that is firm ground from which to draw larger conclusions about who they are. I might change my mind if you were a public figure.
If you think hiring is simply based on what people can do that others cannot, yours would be a tough place to work
That's right Dave. My first two careers were tough. And I hired people in both of them. And felt lucky to have the privilege a few times. Most of us didn't make a lot of money either.
Pride in accomplishment, and camaraderie, were important to both. And I wouldn't trade those experiences for the rest of the working world. I sincerely hope others can say as much about their working lives.
But enough about me.
I'm wondering why you headlined Danoff's comments about young people gambling. I don't think he mentioned gambling. Maybe you can cite the passage I missed.
It's one thing to say I shouldn't take you seriously anymore. You have explained to me why I shouldn't. But in this day and age I wonder why old boomers feel the need to rant at the kids. It's like you forgot reruns.
>> Pride in accomplishment, and camaraderie, were important to both.
Ah, you did not mention that. So there are other qualities. Good to know.
>> I'm wondering why you headlined Danoff's comments about young people gambling. I don't think he mentioned gambling. Maybe you can cite the passage I missed.
It's in the hed, dude. Look it up. And here you are calling me an old boomer. Jeez and ow.
Comments
My parents have owned shares of FCNTX for over 30 years and are really happy with their returns over these 3 decades.
I hope my kids (your age) still own funds and etfs
I think there are more kids worried about employment, housing, and student loans than day trading.
Younger generations are very different than the older ones. Some don't invest because our company offers only low cost index funds, even with generous company match. Guess our priorities on investing are quite different.
that shows they are profoundly stupid and probably should not have been hired
HR shd track this sort of thing
Are they debt free?
I would pay down debt before investing in anything.
And other young people you know seem to have prudent plans.
My parents were the youngest children in their families. They were born in 1917 and 1920. And they raised me, their youngest child, with a profound skepticism for the rants of old people.
What my children would like to talk about can't be discussed here since off topic is on vacation. But they do appreciate that they aren't saddled with debt.
Transcript here: https://ritholtz.com/2020/09/transcript-will-danoff/
I haven’t listened, Interesting that he is making the rounds this month, rarely see anything about him. Evidently he has a great track record. Reading the Bloomberg article reminded me of Fidelity Leverage fund (FLVCX) which killed from about 2002 to 2007 and then exploded! But that is actually totally unrelated to Danoff.
if calling the turning-down when young of free money 'stupid' is ranting, oh, I got more
Nothing was stipulated about how long they turned it down. As a retired parent w adult children (who are savers) I just have a thing about passing up free money when young.
Sven posted:
>> Some don't invest because our company offers only low cost index funds, even with generous company match.
Ital mine. This seems remarkable to me, and I bet it would to about anyone. No, HR should not track. It's a free country for being stupid. (manifestly.) I wonder how they got the job in the first place.
I read somewhere that young people don't reach mental maturity until 25 years old. I took accounting in high school and understood the power of compounding in my saving account. Like I mentioned earlier I had others who save diligently in their 401(k) and pay off their college loans at the same time.
FCNTX was closed from April 3, 1998 to Dec 15, 2000 (it had around $35B AUM at the time). Fidelity closed the fund again from April 28, 2006 to Dec 15, 2008. (It had around $65B, and Danoff was also managing New Insights with another $10B). Fidelity also closed New Insights on April 28, 2006, but reopened this smaller fund earlier, on Oct 31, 2007.
The only Fidelity fund I can recall being closed when it was still small was New Millennium (FMILX) . Three and a half years after it launched at the end of 1992 it closed, as promised, for a decade.
David
If any of us had stuck w Danoff starting fully 3y into his career, and compared w peers who had instead (for good reasons) gone and stayed w SP500, D&C Growth, TRP Blue Chip, Fido ditto, Jensen, Sequoia, Yacktman, sundry Vanguard offerings, etc etc, we would have come out at least tens of thou ahead, if not much more.
Not sure anyone has had a career like Danoff over 30y.
Oh, and Tillinghast beats all of those also from summer 1993. What a pair those two are.
You just gotta have faith (as one of my kids always reminds me when our team is behind).
When I was in positions to hire people I needed specific skill sets that had absolutely nothing to do with coping with investment decisions.
When the retirement plan came up our advice was to pick the targeted date fund if they didn't want to hassle with the research. If they chose not to participate we didn't bug them because it was no picnic finding their skill sets to begin with. And we didn't think it was appropriate to dig into their personal decision. OK. Ignore what you wrote. I should just assume sarcasm from you. Because they can do things you can't. It's just that simple.
Maybe I'm stretching the bounds of "other investing." But I do prefer to have a more accurate grasp of that large economic factor known as millennials.
Going back to the original post, and the article cited, Danoff doesn't mention gambling. What he does talk about is the crowded competitive space he finds himself in.
The attention span of young people is only one of a number of factors he mentions. The Robinhood anxiety headline seems like click bait to me. The headline could have as easily read he has index anxiety.
The way investment information -- or news -- is packaged and sold is also of interest to me.
>> I should just assume sarcasm from you.
Yes, I believe you should. Not everyone else.
You could safely assume no one seriously proposes HR should track employees in that regard.
If you think hiring is simply based on what people can do that others cannot, yours would be a tough place to work, for anyone. (Also if some is the same as one.)
I can only guess why people say things they don't mean. I don't think that is firm ground from which to draw larger conclusions about who they are. I might change my mind if you were a public figure. That's right Dave. My first two careers were tough. And I hired people in both of them. And felt lucky to have the privilege a few times. Most of us didn't make a lot of money either.
Pride in accomplishment, and camaraderie, were important to both. And I wouldn't trade those experiences for the rest of the working world. I sincerely hope others can say as much about their working lives.
But enough about me.
I'm wondering why you headlined Danoff's comments about young people gambling. I don't think he mentioned gambling. Maybe you can cite the passage I missed.
It's one thing to say I shouldn't take you seriously anymore. You have explained to me why I shouldn't. But in this day and age I wonder why old boomers feel the need to rant at the kids. It's like you forgot reruns.
thank the Lord !
>> Pride in accomplishment, and camaraderie, were important to both.
Ah, you did not mention that. So there are other qualities. Good to know.
>> I'm wondering why you headlined Danoff's comments about young people gambling. I don't think he mentioned gambling. Maybe you can cite the passage I missed.
It's in the hed, dude. Look it up. And here you are calling me an old boomer. Jeez and ow.