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.
Nice job David, I really enjoyed reading this month's commentary and it was well-timed.
Couldn't help but smile when I came across
To which Morningstar says, “If you’ve got $50 million to spend, we’ve got a fund for you!”
I couldn't believe that article when it came out and posted in the comments section under the same moniker which btw, ideally should not have a "string", but is a force of habit as I didn't think Tony G would actually be available (it never is!), but looking at other usernames, think there might be a chance.
Question: Do you think the author simply just doesn't give a damn, or could she, as well as the editors who allowed the article to publish, possibly be that negligent (really, working @ M* and not knowing GMO minimums? If so, incompetent is more appropriate)?
Comments
Couldn't help but smile when I came across I couldn't believe that article when it came out and posted in the comments section under the same moniker which btw, ideally should not have a "string", but is a force of habit as I didn't think Tony G would actually be available (it never is!), but looking at other usernames, think there might be a chance.
Question: Do you think the author simply just doesn't give a damn, or could she, as well as the editors who allowed the article to publish, possibly be that negligent (really, working @ M* and not knowing GMO minimums? If so, incompetent is more appropriate)?
Charles' Balconey - in menu bar
Charles’ Balcony” in commentary
@David_Snowball
Working on it.
David
Thanks, Accipiter! Fixed it.
chip