Thread: The strongest economy in the world

Mutual funds for guys like you and me then Snaffie are a waste of time. I told you before I'm bailing out ... I don't need them anyway. The only good thing, as it turns out, is that I've put enough in them to get me the deposit on a marriage visa and build a house. Mutual funds are a pain in the ass anyway. And unless you get lucky they produce chump change for us poor men.

So, you have the same idea as me? Leverage the strong U.S. dollar to give you a huge return by 'investing' it somewhere where the per capita income is very low?

MM, I believe more than just poor get stuck on credit card debt. My parents' combined income when I was in high school (1980s) was at least $80,000 per year. Yet, they had no money and a huge load of CC debt because it was simply too easy to buy things they really couldn't afford by charging it. Somehow the ability to use a piece of plastic takes away the real feeling that money is being spent.

I don't have a single CC and I really don't plan to. That way when I spend money I see the physical money being spent and it makes me very thrifty (only thing I really ever pay by check for is my rent or things that require large payments such as computer purchases).

I don't know what the fuck I'm talkin' about surasak ... I just wanna take a break and go hide in some remote province for a spell.

Get away from it all? It does have benefits. Relaxed easy lifestyle.

Imagine the leverage you get from converting $1 to 38-40 baht.

I hate coming back to the U.S. facing the fact that a simple meal at McFatty's is easily almost $10 for the two of us. To eat in Bangkok is less than $3.

Man, the best time I ever had was drinking beer on the beach of Koh Phi Phi. That was paradise and I'll do anything to get it back.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Mutual funds are for people who basically don't know what they are doing. The recent reports for the last 20 years are absolutely awful. I have 11 funds that I've carefully chosen. But mutual funds are a poor man's game.

I have been getting 10-12% return on most of my funds for years, thats plenty for me. Considering that there is absolutely no effort required this is not a bad return. Most other investments require significant time and energy, I don't have the time to get involved in business ventures when I am working full time.

Maybe this will change in the future but who knows. It is possible that my funds will go tits up someday but I am pretty well diversified and anything other than a global recession shouldn't hurt me too much. Currently I am over exposed to the Canadian economy but I will rectify that when my house sells and I move my non-RRSP investments offshore.

On the other hand if you have under $100k invested in mutual funds the returns will not be that significant and it will take many years before they grow to the point that they will support you. Opening a small business will return much more $ if it is successful but in most cases to make them successful you have to work your ass off.

^ True SC.

You are doing well. My funds have been producing some decent returns because I chose them carefully. But you're right, having 100K and getting say 6% return (-3% inflation) is a real return of 3%, which is $30,000 per year.

Many funds can produce more than 6% (as in your case) if chosen carefully.

Originally Posted by Milkman

is a real return of 3%, which is $30,000 per year.

Pretty sure you meant $3,000.

Yeah, I want some of those 30% funds too!

Originally Posted by Sanuk Canuk

Originally Posted by Milkman

is a real return of 3%, which is $30,000 per year.

Pretty sure you meant $3,000.

Oops. Yeah, 3K.

I am pretty diversified although I don't like that mantra:

I have small, mid and large cap. Growth, income. Domestic, and International, and an Emerging market. And an the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund which is non-IRA but I consider one of the retirement funds.

^ Sounds like you have all the basis covered, I like to go for value based funds over growth and I like dividend funds over income but I have a bit of each. I am not a big believer in sector funds but you can make a fortune with them. I also like index funds though I am not sure if they are better or worse than an ETF.

Originally Posted by Milkman

My funds have been producing some decent returns because I chose them carefully.

I'm not sure that "choosing funds carefully" is going to really influence their performance mate

But seriously. Instead of making the negative comments about people who choose or use mutual funds maybe you should gie them credit.

I mean, lots of people understand simple things like dollar cost averaging. It's amazing how you can invest in things a little at a time like buying bonds, mutual funds, whole life policies, rental property and collectibles and wake up one day 15, 20, 30 years later and have a hell of alot more than you realized.

Lost of people have "chosen carefully" and still lost their shirts.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Lost of people have "chosen carefully" and still lost their shirts.

That's because people need to move things around.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Lost of people have "chosen carefully" and still lost their shirts.

I think many folks who do this don't really know what they are doing. If I "choose carefully" and buy a bunch of sector funds or buy all my funds in one asset class then I will do poorly even if I pick the best of the bunch. The real key is to diversify across asset types, geographic areas etc.

I am way too overweight in Canadian funds right now but I will rebalanced stuff out when I sell my house, then I should be truly diversified and I would expect 9-10% long term growth (pre-inflation). I hope I will get 10-12% but 9-10% will do.

^ Yes, Sanuk.

If someone "chooses carefully" they don't lose their shirt.

The old mantra of "diversification" is boring but needed. Different sectors, sizes of Caps, and geographical areas. And dumping fund to go to cash and/or move to another fund.

the problem with country diversification in investment is that everything is interconnected now. Not much diversification after all. When NY falls, Japan, HK, Europe, and everybody else follow.

^ Agree.

So many things are interconnected.

Domestic, international, and different sectors can be.

Possibly because of computers it creates an even easier sheep mentality to go into and out of something.

So many are "diversified" into the same things.

Is this....diversification? I'm not sure.

Real diversification means investing out of the financial markets (e.g. Real Estate) all together.

Land is about the only commodity I can think of that fluctuates on a local level and is sort of immune to global problems. Certain places will always have expensive land even when the economy tanks (Bay Area, LA, NY, Tokyo, Taipei, Seoul, etc).

How many of you even bother to research if your fund manager is even invested in the fund managed ?

Nobody has said anything that can't be read in a variety of magazines. And anybody who bothers to read a few is armed with the same knowledge anybody has espoused here.

Mutual funds aren't about making money overnight anyway ... they're about being an investment vehicle for those who can put their money in something long term. And as mentioned for those who don't have a large sum to invest all at one time.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

How many of you even bother to research if your fund manager is even invested in the fund managed ?

I'd rather that a fund manager didn't. I look at the 10 year returns, although they don't reflect future potential. When managers change is when one should take notice on the manager.

Nobody has said anything that can't be read in a variety of magazines. And anybody who bothers to read a few is armed with the same knowledge anybody has espoused here.

This is common. There's not point in getting too deep with mutual funds.

Mutual funds aren't about making money overnight anyway ... they're about being an investment vehicle for those who can put their money in something long term. And as mentioned for those who don't have a large sum to invest all at one time.

I know. This is what I've been saying.

You can be as careful as you want but you can never anticipate when a guy like Marcinko will jupm ship from a company like Janus to start his own funds.

Your "carefully" selected fund becomes questionable over night.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

You can be as careful as you want but you can never anticipate when a guy like Marcinko will jupm ship from a company like Janus to start his own funds.

Your "carefully" selected fund becomes questionable over night.

Agreed.

And there are hidden fees in many of these jerk-off funds.

What was that fiasco with almost all mutual funds a few years ago ? I vaguely remember they were all fuggin' us somehow.

Like I said ... I'm bailing out of all of mine. October 1st is my bail date and that's it. I bailed on two last year and one a couple of years ago. One of the funds I'm bailing has these statistics:

** 9.29% return for 2006
** 26.29% return in the last 18 months
** 9.55% return during the 15 years I've had the fund.

(An American Century Fund)

Almost 10% over ten years is respectable, SK.

On a macro-note: here's an article on wages and productivity in recent years:P

Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity-Mail This ave

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE and DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: August 28, 2006
With the economy beginning to slow, the current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages for most workers.

Link:Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity - New York Times