Market timing, prove it
ZONE
PP> Except there is NO EVIDENCE that shows that you strategy works in
PP> the long run. But there is overwhelming evidence that buy and hold
PP> beats your method every time.
I wondered why the short term market timers haven't setup a mutual
fund(s) to demonstrate the superiority of their method. The closest
type of fund I have seen is the asset allocation type funds but I
haven't seen the big numbers in those group of funds to support their
position.
Steve Hunter
>
> In a message to All <11/15/19> Pau...@eskimo.com wrote:
>
> PP> Except there is NO EVIDENCE that shows that you strategy works in
> PP> the long run. But there is overwhelming evidence that buy and hold
> PP> beats your method every time.
>
> I wondered why the short term market timers haven't setup a mutual
> fund(s) to demonstrate the superiority of their method.
There are many good reasons:
1. Market timing is unpopular and therefore a fund wouldn't be
marketable.
2. Mutual funds must become relatively large to cover expenses. This
makes them difficult to actively manage successfully.
3. Skilled market timers have better opportunites with hedge funds and
managed accounts.
BTW, I have nothing against buy-and-hold. I just prefer to make more
than 10% a year and prefer not to ride out large drawdowns.
Steve Hunter, ULTRA Financial Systems Inc.
http://www.ultrafs.com
Stock market timing strategies.
Brian A. Cowper
ZONE (ZO...@xx.notreal.com) writes:
> In a message to All <11/15/19> Pau...@eskimo.com wrote:
>
> PP> Except there is NO EVIDENCE that shows that you strategy works in
> PP> the long run. But there is overwhelming evidence that buy and hold
> PP> beats your method every time.
>
> I wondered why the short term market timers haven't setup a mutual
> type of fund I have seen is the asset allocation type funds but I
> haven't seen the big numbers in those group of funds to support their
> position.
The simple explanation is that there really are no buy and holders in the
marketplace; it is a simplistic method to determine gains, a theory to
which no one subscribes. Changes occur in everyone's portfolio, whether
they are DCAing into a select group of funds, re-allocating,
re-sectorizing, taking out profits. Now, people like Ed and Paul will
ascribe that these reorganizing movements, up to a point, are allowed in a
buy and hold and diversification strategy, and they will be correct, but
where do you draw the line? Ten, twenty percent? Quarterly rebalancing?
Really. . . where? And this limited rebalancing, how does this
potentially skew information?
The mathematics and compilation of data is much more difficult to
determine a constant switching strategy opposed to buy such and such funds
on January first and extrapolating over a protracted period of time; also,
there is the tendency only to compare one particular fund rather than a
completely diversified selection of funds. Diversification of funds in a
bull market, diversifies and averages out your returns for a consistent
market downfall which never is sustained for more than a few weeks. Yet
we have much historical evidence that markets cyclically correct
themselves when they become overbought and tension is manufactured.
And then, of course, Ed and Paul's most consistent error, is grouping all
market timers in some sort of pot, classifying them _all_ as
underperforming some sort of index, whether it be the SP500 or whatever.
This assumes that, if you were a buy and holder, you _didn't diversify and
had everything in a SP500 indexed fund or something designed to
synthetically mimic. . . well, this strategy is *somewhat* inconsistent
with what I would consider a buy and holder's mentality don't you think.
Typically, a buy and holder would be in bonds, bond funds [makes a lot of
sense, right? The two sort of counteract each other; how safe can you
get?], T-bills, MMFs, Equities both domestic and foreign, Indexed, etc.
So, assuming a buy and hold strategy with the typical investor who
diversifies, how does this equate to holding its own with the _indexes_?
Not too well, methinks.
Diversification and blind, ostrich-like buy and hold, not seeing the train
coming at you investment strategies, are mutually at odds with each other.
Only when you have all your eggs in _one_ basket, _and_ it happens to be
the *right* basket, does it work.
Brian
--
Which is it, is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's?
-- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
Thomas Price
Suppose last March you examine the valuations of your portfolio of 20 or
so stocks and decide that many of them are selling for half again what
they're worth. You would be foolish not to consider selling some of them.
After selling, further suppose that you don't really find any stocks that
are selling at an attractive enough discount to their "real" worth. What
would you do? Buy the other stocks anyway? Or would you sensibly put
your money in a safe place until you did get a good "offer" on the market
for a stock that you'd like to buy?
This is essentially exactly what the Clipper fund did in the early part of
this year. I has had excellent returns and significantly lower
volatility (however you measure it) than the S&P 500. Is this market
timing, or is it sensible investing? Of course, one also has to recall
the way the Brandywine fund management was excoriated for moving most of
its assets into cash over a two month period. _That_ was market timing,
but the Clipper fund is just being sensible, eh.
I think comparing these examples can give us some insight as to where the
line is. If you sell off 80% of your holdings and switch to other
holdings because you anticipate a broad market move (like Brandywine),
it's market timing and a bad idea. If you periodically weed out your
portfolio of holdings that you think are overvalued and move the proceeds
to the best available investing option you can find, that's prudent
investing. In an overvalued market, it may be that you don't think any
stocks are a good buy, in which case MMF or T bills are your best
investing option.
I don't even want to get into this option of wholesale switching of assets
based on "market signals" or technical analysis. It seems that there's
too much to go wrong and that the tax consequences and possible
transaction costs would kill you. That's just my opinion, I respect
other's right to hold a contrary one. It's just that this type of
investing isn't for me.
Brian A. Cowper
Thomas Price (tpr...@engr.msstate.edu) writes:
Sure parking in a virtually guaranteed product for the faint of heart
during these questioning times or how 'bout migrating part of your funds
to something less volatile but will still show upward momentum if the
market continues to vault along, but will show a less steep decline if it
falls? Like an international balanced fund? Sound familiar. I park in
several international balanced funds. . . all historically around 17% YTD,
last two, last three years. Where's the risk? As I've said before, we
can count on the volatility of the Japanese market. Why not play
partially into their problem wait for the spike, then _count on_ Bobbie
Rubin to come out with his Japan-bashing stick, having left with ten to
twenty in your pocket in a short term rush.
> I don't even want to get into this option of wholesale switching of assets
> based on "market signals" or technical analysis. It seems that there's
> too much to go wrong and that the tax consequences and possible
> transaction costs would kill you. That's just my opinion, I respect
> other's right to hold a contrary one. It's just that this type of
> investing isn't for me.
Pay me now. . . or pay me later, or get back what I over paid? What does
it matter? And if incorporated into a maxxed out 401/403/407/IRA/ RRSP/
RRIF strategy, the gains in I'm sure some of these cases disappear.
Delimiting your potential return because of the taxes you may have to pay
is non-sequitur. It reminds me of my mother who never wants to bowl
really good games 'cuz her average will go up, and make it more difficult
for her to maintain. . . Duh! Poor Mom.
>
> ZONE wrote:
>
>> In a message to All <11/15/19> Pau...@eskimo.com wrote:
>>
>> PP> Except there is NO EVIDENCE that shows that you strategy works in
>> PP> the long run. But there is overwhelming evidence that buy and hold
>> PP> beats your method every time.
>>
>> I wondered why the short term market timers haven't setup a mutual
>> fund(s) to demonstrate the superiority of their method. The closest
>> type of fund I have seen is the asset allocation type funds but I
>> haven't seen the big numbers in those group of funds to support their
>> position.
>
Thomas Price
> Pay me now. . . or pay me later, or get back what I over paid? What does
> it matter? And if incorporated into a maxxed out 401/403/407/IRA/ RRSP/
> RRIF strategy, the gains in I'm sure some of these cases disappear.
>
> Delimiting your potential return because of the taxes you may have to pay
> is non-sequitur. It reminds me of my mother who never wants to bowl
> really good games 'cuz her average will go up, and make it more difficult
> for her to maintain. . . Duh! Poor Mom.
>
You know, there I go out of my way not to step on any toes, and what does it get
me? All I said was I'm not going to churn my portfolio based on market
indicators or what I think the short-term trend of the market will be. I will
churn my portfolio in the form of shifting assets around when I think certain of
those assets are overvalued in the market.
Of course you shouldn't be afraid to make a profit just to avoid the tax
consequences. But, if you trade more often, you generate a bigger tax bill, and
incur more transaction costs. And if your trades are less than a year apart, it
doesn't all come out in the wash. Short term cap. gains are taxed as income
while long term cap gains are taxed at a much lower rate.
Tom
Ed
below here, it sounds as if he's just repeating what I said a week or
two ago.
He has no valuable original ideas. Remember that he was the one who
suggested a 17 year old with a 12 month time horizon and absolutely no
investment experience put his college savings into a stock fund.
When you find yourself agreeing with the Canadian Wonder, just slap some
cold water on your face and come back to your senses.
Ed
> You know, there I go out of my way not to step on any toes, and what does it get
> me?
Cold water, walk around your office for a minute or two. Told you. He
can't help himself.
ZONE
UU> 1. Market timing is unpopular and therefore a fund wouldn't be
UU> marketable.
Would you consider any of the asset allocation mutual fund, such as Van
Guard's Asset Allocation Fund, in the realm of a short term market
timing strategy? I really think the idea of market timing is great, but
seeing someone who can do it profitably in the long run seems to be
difficult to find.
UU> 2. Mutual funds must become relatively large to cover expenses.
UU> This makes them difficult to actively manage successfully.
A large mutual funds that focus on small caps could have a tough time
finding enough quality small company to fully invest in all the money
the manager would like too if they were too large. Janus Venture comes
to mind. I understand that Janus Venture Fund is now closed to new
investors becuase it was gettign too large. However, I wouldn't think
large asset mutual funds would have too much problems in the large cap
market.
UU> 3. Skilled market timers have better opportunites with hedge
UU> funds and managed accounts.
Do you know of any third party originizations that tracks managed
accounts' total returns over the long run? I would be interested in
seeing how they performed.
UU> BTW, I have nothing against buy-and-hold. I just prefer to make
UU> more than 10% a year and prefer not to ride out large drawdowns.
I have nothing against timing theory myself. I would like to be able to
take defensive action against 10% downward market swings. The technical
analysis is interesting. I'm just not sure that market swings are
driven solely on logical quantitative reasons.
jh -
Brian A. Cowper
Ed (fri...@fishinthe.net) writes:
> Tom, I don't read Cowper's posts. But if you're responding to one of his
> below here, it sounds as if he's just repeating what I said a week or
> two ago.
This is hilarious. And it was me who criticized Ed for migrating from his
buy and hold platform to agree with me.
> He has no valuable original ideas. Remember that he was the one who
> suggested a 17 year old with a 12 month time horizon and absolutely no
> investment experience put his college savings into a stock fund.
That's right, Ed. That was about two months ago? If he took your advice
his three grand is still worth three grand. . . bond funds have generally
taken a dip. If he took mine, well, maybe he's got four and a half. . .
if he felt queasy, he could park it, wait for one more dip before tuition
time and buy himself a case of Coors Light.
Your advice does such good things for such nice people, Ed. You should
feel proud.
I'm sure you done your part to hasten his journey to a mediocre education.
> When you find yourself agreeing with the Canadian Wonder, just slap some
> cold water on your face and come back to your senses.
A goof to the end.
>> Thomas Price (tpr...@engr.msstate.edu) writes:
>>
>> > As much as I hate to agree with Cowper, he does make some good points.
--
Brian A. Cowper
Maybe he's going to walk around his indoor pool, Ed? And rather than
splashing cold water, go for a dip?
Greg Hennessy
> That's right, Ed. That was about two months ago? If he took your advice
> his three grand is still worth three grand. . . bond funds have generally
> taken a dip. If he took mine, well, maybe he's got four and a half. . .
What stock funds have gone up 50% in two months as you imply?
Ed
> What stock funds have gone up 50% in two months as you imply?
For two, Hong Kong & Singapore WEBS. I have some Singapore, but I missed
out on Hong Kong. Actually, they've gone up more that 50%. EWS went from
3 1/16 in September to 5 5/8 yesterday. EWH went from 5 5/16 to 9 1/2
yesterday.
Brian A. Cowper
>> That's right, Ed. That was about two months ago? If he took your advice
>> his three grand is still worth three grand. . . bond funds have generally
>> taken a dip. If he took mine, well, maybe he's got four and a half. . .
> What stock funds have gone up 50% in two months as you imply?
A couple of Japanese / Asian. Some Nasdaq 100's in the last two months
around thirty. Maybe the four and a half is slightly off. I was simply
trying to make a point. The point being that if this kid invested in what
Ed wanted him to do, he would not be ahead come tuition time.
Greg Hennessy
> A couple of Japanese / Asian. Some Nasdaq 100's in the last two months
> around thirty. Maybe the four and a half is slightly off. I was simply
> trying to make a point.
If your point is you make vague recommendations of "stock fund" then
go back post facto and find the highest returnign of the twenty
thousand stock funds available and say "I told you so" with ficticious
numbers, you have indeed made a point.
Of course you can *always* find *some* stuck fund that has gone up, so
you can keep playing this game as long as you want.
Brian A. Cowper
Of course, but when some of these funds are ones I've been suggesting for
the last two and a half years, the game changes, doesn't it>
Brian A. Cowper
Brian A. Cowper (ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Greg Hennessy (g...@tantalus.clark.net) writes:
>> Brian A. Cowper <ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>>> A couple of Japanese / Asian. Some Nasdaq 100's in the last two months
>>> around thirty. Maybe the four and a half is slightly off. I was simply
>>> trying to make a point.
>>
>> If your point is you make vague recommendations of "stock fund" then
>> go back post facto and find the highest returnign of the twenty
>> thousand stock funds available and say "I told you so" with ficticious
>> numbers, you have indeed made a point.
>>
>> Of course you can *always* find *some* stuck fund that has gone up, so
>> you can keep playing this game as long as you want.
>
> Of course, but when some of these funds are ones I've been suggesting for
> the last two and a half years, the game changes, doesn't it>
And besides, are you suggesting that 'investing' in an mmf for this kid
was the right thing to do the last two months than in _any_ stock fund?
If you are not going to take a small chance at seventeen, and for your
education of all things, when are you going to take the risk?
I fail to see what your real point is. Should the kid be content with a
hundred and fifty bucks over the course of a year to _vastly_ improve his
quality of education, or should he take a bit of a chance during the
longest bull market in the history of the known universe to achieve some
better than typical gains in some riskier ventures? As you were aware, if
we are talking two months ago, the market had already dropped
precipitously.
Greg Hennessy
> > you can keep playing this game as long as you want.
>
> Of course, but when some of these funds are ones I've been suggesting for
> the last two and a half years, the game changes, doesn't it>
Not when you reply with such useless information such as "Asian stock
funds", which you didn't even do to the person in question, you just
replied "stock funds", which is less than useful.
Gary - KJ6Q
LET'S make this SIMPLE - just point me to a stock or fund that I can invest
in TOMORROW, that will increase my money by 50% this same time NEXT month...
SHOULD be EASY, RIGHT?
What's that? Speak up - I can't hear you...
Gary - KJ6Q
Greg Hennessy wrote in message ...
Greg Hennessy
> was the right thing to do the last two months than in _any_ stock fund?
To the contrary.
> I fail to see what your real point is.
Stocks are not an appropiate place to invest money that is needed in a
two month time scale.
> As you were aware, if
> we are talking two months ago, the market had already dropped
> precipitously.
And if it had dropped again, the kid would have been screwed, and he
wouldn't have enough time to ride it out to let the investment recover
lost value.
Ed
>
> Directed at Brian...
>
> LET'S make this SIMPLE - just point me to a stock or fund that I can invest
> in TOMORROW, that will increase my money by 50% this same time NEXT month...
> SHOULD be EASY, RIGHT?
>
> What's that? Speak up - I can't hear you...
>
> Gary - KJ6Q
Now that's a list I'd like to have. Of course Cowper would include a
double your money back guarantee. He's good, very good.
Brian A. Cowper
Greg Hennessy (g...@tantalus.clark.net) writes:
>> And besides, are you suggesting that 'investing' in an mmf for this kid
>> was the right thing to do the last two months than in _any_ stock fund?
>
> To the contrary.
>
>> I fail to see what your real point is.
>
> Stocks [funds] are not an appropiate place to invest money that is needed
in a > two month time scale.
Why? Markets were low, had nowhere to go but up. . . what's the problem?
>> As you were aware, if
>> we are talking two months ago, the market had already dropped
>> precipitously.
>
> And if it had dropped again, the kid would have been screwed, and he
> wouldn't have enough time to ride it out to let the investment recover
> lost value.
Yeah, sure. If the markets dropped another TEN percent, he would have
been down 300 bucks to 2700. Really being screwed. . . an extra week of
working at McDonalds.
If it went up ten percent, as it did, and then recovered another ten, as
it did, and went up a lot with some risk as he could've, he'd have enough
to take an extra credit or two?
Greg Hennessy
> in a > two month time scale.
>
> Why? Markets were low, had nowhere to go but up. . . what's the problem?
Brian, I hate to break this news to you, but stocks and stock funds
can also go down.
> Yeah, sure. If the markets dropped another TEN percent, he would have
> been down 300 bucks to 2700. Really being screwed. . . an extra week of
> working at McDonalds.
Since he wanted to start school, he didn't *have* an extra week he
could work. Interesting that you seem to think that working an honest
job at McDonalds is something to be insulted about.
Brian A. Cowper
Greg Hennessy (g...@tantalus.clark.net) writes:
> Brian A. Cowper <ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>> > Stocks [funds] are not an appropiate place to invest money that is needed
>> in a > two month time scale.
>>
>> Why? Markets were low, had nowhere to go but up. . . what's the problem?
>
> Brian, I hate to break this news to you, but stocks and stock funds
> can also go down.
We're talking about likelihood, Greg.
>> Yeah, sure. If the markets dropped another TEN percent, he would have
>> been down 300 bucks to 2700. Really being screwed. . . an extra week of
>> working at McDonalds.
>
> Since he wanted to start school, he didn't *have* an extra week he
> could work. Interesting that you seem to think that working an honest
> job at McDonalds is something to be insulted about.
He had a whole year to cram an extra week of work in. Maybe he could've
worked two and half weekends in a row.
Hey, _I_ worked at McDonalds. In 1978, I was twenty years old, had a
hundred thousand in the bank, a manager of a McDonalds making about twenty
annual plus bonus of up to sixty percent, just bought a house and drove a
Vette, lived in a Downtown Toronto apartment building whose 19th floor
balcony was within forty feet of McDonalds 13th floor executive offices at
20 Eglinton West.
I would never ridicule McDonalds. Its probably not the same in the US,
but McDonalds used to be a plum company to work for at management level.
They treated and I presume still treat their managers very, very well.
Salary wise, I believe they have fallen back quite hard, however. But
back then, they bought your devotion.
I might never have left and would still be there if it wasn't for the
matter of two sixteen year olds getting pregnant. . .
Paul Maffia
>Greg Hennessy (g...@tantalus.clark.net) writes:
>>> And besides, are you suggesting that 'investing' in an mmf for this kid
>>> was the right thing to do the last two months than in _any_ stock fund?
>>
>> To the contrary.
>>
>>> I fail to see what your real point is.
>>
>> Stocks [funds] are not an appropiate place to invest money that is needed
>in a > two month time scale.
>Why? Markets were low, had nowhere to go but up. . . what's the problem?
The statement made by every ignoramus who starts playing the investment
game. Also a prime example of the bilge that always flows from a bull
market genius.
>>> As you were aware, if
>>> we are talking two months ago, the market had already dropped
>>> precipitously.
>>
>> And if it had dropped again, the kid would have been screwed, and he
>> wouldn't have enough time to ride it out to let the investment recover
>> lost value.
>Yeah, sure. If the markets dropped another TEN percent, he would have
>been down 300 bucks to 2700. Really being screwed. . . an extra week of
>working at McDonalds.
Hey look at how well Mickey D's trained you to be a stock market guru!!
Odds are you cannot even flip a burger effectively.
>If it went up ten percent, as it did, and then recovered another ten, as
>it did, and went up a lot with some risk as he could've, he'd have enough
>to take an extra credit or two?
Yea right!!!!
--
Paul M.
SPAMMERS who send unsolicited ads of any kind to me have assumed the
position of client. My minimum charge to any client is $2,500.00. The sum
will be billed and if unpaid will be put into collection at your expense.
Jim Davidson
> Greg Hennessy (g...@tantalus.clark.net) writes:
>
> >> And besides, are you suggesting that 'investing' in an mmf for this kid
> >> was the right thing to do the last two months than in _any_ stock fund?
> >
> > To the contrary.
> >
> >> I fail to see what your real point is.
> >
> > Stocks [funds] are not an appropiate place to invest money that is needed
> in a > two month time scale.
>
> Why? Markets were low, had nowhere to go but up. . . what's the problem?
You may be partly right. Markets are likely to go up in the long run.
Where was the guarantee that they would go up in two months?
Betting that the markets will go up substantially in two months is speculation,
not investment.
-Jim
Brian A. Cowper
It wasn't two months. The kid was looking for next years tuition, I think
they were looking at a year. The two months came from what has actually
happened to the markets since the original post to date. I think Ed or
Paul suggested he put his three grand in a money market fund for a year
and that I was a loon for suggesting he put it in any sort of stock fund
for a year at most, and if he got queasy at anytime after and if it got a
good return, to yank it out and buy himself a beer, content that he got
more than five percent. As it worked out, he could've easily got fifteen,
pulled it out and trebled his potential return and in only two months. Ed
and Paul are such gifted thinkers. They do the world a lot of good.
Jim Titus
plan was that you would also refrain from any further baiting. What
irritates me about some of his posts is that they go off topic and into
personalities. Please resist the temptation--no one cares whether his
ideas are original or not, as long as they are on point.
Ed wrote:
>
> Tom, I don't read Cowper's posts. But if you're responding to one of his
> below here, it sounds as if he's just repeating what I said a week or
> two ago.
>
> He has no valuable original ideas. Remember that he was the one who
> suggested a 17 year old with a 12 month time horizon and absolutely no
> investment experience put his college savings into a stock fund.
>
> When you find yourself agreeing with the Canadian Wonder, just slap some
> cold water on your face and come back to your senses.
>
> > Thomas Price (tpr...@engr.msstate.edu) writes:
> >
> > > As much as I hate to agree with Cowper, he does make some good points.
Paul Maffia
The problem with total idiots like you are that you make mindless
recommendations that happen by sheer chance to work out and think you are
a genius.
What you can never explain or account for, in this type of situation, is
what happens if, as will inevitably happen, you are wrong and he ends up
with less and often much less than he started with.
And then when you are sued and lose in court, as you obviously and surely
will, you will cry that the system has been unfair to you, when in fact it
has rendered a fair and well deserved judgement that you are a total
idiot who unnecessarily and by your stupid neglect caused the damage and
must pay for it.
And then the rest of us end up paying through the nose for our E&O
coverage. All because of a complete and total dufass.
Brian A. Cowper
Paul Maffia (pau...@eskimo.com) writes:
> ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) writes:
>
>>It wasn't two months. The kid was looking for next years tuition, I think
>>they were looking at a year. The two months came from what has actually
>>happened to the markets since the original post to date. I think Ed or
>>Paul suggested he put his three grand in a money market fund for a year
>>and that I was a loon for suggesting he put it in any sort of stock fund
>>for a year at most, and if he got queasy at anytime after and if it got a
>>good return, to yank it out and buy himself a beer, content that he got
>>more than five percent. As it worked out, he could've easily got fifteen,
>>pulled it out and trebled his potential return and in only two months. Ed
>>and Paul are such gifted thinkers. They do the world a lot of good.
>
> The problem with total idiots like you are that you make mindless
> recommendations that happen by sheer chance to work out and think you are
> a genius.
What's so difficult, Paul? It has been a bull market for as long as I've
been an adult.
> What you can never explain or account for, in this type of situation, is
> what happens if, as will inevitably happen, you are wrong and he ends up
> with less and often much less than he started with.
Sure Paul. After dropping nominally twenty percent, it drops another
twenty percent. . . not too likely, and then he would be down to 2400 from
three thousand _presuming_ he was completely buried in and SP500 fund
rather than a mixture of sector funds with good bull market performance
characteristics which, as you must know by now, is what I usually recommend.
Big deal, the risk for return when the market's down outweighs potential
loss. Think about, Muffy. . . he missed the twenty percentish valley.
Paul, you are a goof.
> And then when you are sued and lose in court, as you obviously and surely
> will, you will cry that the system has been unfair to you, when in fact it
> has rendered a fair and well deserved judgement that you are a total
> idiot who unnecessarily and by your stupid neglect caused the damage and
> must pay for it.
I have never lost an investment client through dissatisfaction. They are
all idiots, I guess.
> And then the rest of us end up paying through the nose for our E&O
> coverage. All because of a complete and total dufass.
Yeah sure. I pay 20 bucks a month for a million. How much do you pay,
fuckwad? You know why? Because my ethics in both life insurance and
investment products is pristine. I may prefer low loads and CDSCd funds,
but I use low MERd funds, segregated fund wrappers, feeless switching and
advice, etc. Most importantly, I actively manage all of their accounts
for no fee. The only error I have made in the last two years is
consistently underestimating how much influence Mei Li Rubin's comments
have on impacting the Japanese recovery, but I am ahead of the game today,
despite the overnight close in Japan and at one o'clock am Friday, I'll be
celebrating.
Brian A. Cowper
Jim Titus (fig...@it.out) writes:
> Ed, when you stopped reading Brian's posts, I thought that part of the
> plan was that you would also refrain from any further baiting. What
> irritates me about some of his posts is that they go off topic and into
> personalities.
As if Ed or Paul's don't? Come now, Jim.
Please resist the temptation--no one cares whether his
> ideas are original or not, as long as they are on point.
Again, you are suggesting that Ed hasn't completely reversed his attitude
about switching funds or realized the buy and hold strategies are no
longer effective in this market, all on his own? He's done a one eighty
and has virtually agreed with everything he has vilified me for.
Jeezus.
> Ed wrote:
>>
>> Tom, I don't read Cowper's posts. But if you're responding to one of his
>> below here, it sounds as if he's just repeating what I said a week or
>> two ago.
>>
>> He has no valuable original ideas. Remember that he was the one who
>> suggested a 17 year old with a 12 month time horizon and absolutely no
>> investment experience put his college savings into a stock fund.
>>
>> When you find yourself agreeing with the Canadian Wonder, just slap some
>> cold water on your face and come back to your senses.
>>
>> > Thomas Price (tpr...@engr.msstate.edu) writes:
>> >
>> > > As much as I hate to agree with Cowper, he does make some good points.
>> > > Suppose last March you examine the valuations of your portfolio of 20 or
>> > > so stocks and decide that many of them are selling for half again what
>> > > they're worth. You would be foolish not to consider selling some of them.
>> > > After selling, further suppose that you don't really find any stocks that
>> > > are selling at an attractive enough discount to their "real" worth. What
>> > > would you do? Buy the other stocks anyway? Or would you sensibly put
>> > > your money in a safe place until you did get a good "offer" on the market
>> > > for a stock that you'd like to buy?
Ed
>
> Ed, when you stopped reading Brian's posts, I thought that part of the
> plan was that you would also refrain from any further baiting. What
> irritates me about some of his posts is that they go off topic and into
> ideas are original or not, as long as they are on point.
I don't recall laying out a "plan". While it is true that anything Brian
authors doesn't show up on my news reader, other posters messages
contain bits of wisdom from him. The man is twisted. He also likes to
twist everything anyone says.
It is difficult not to respond in some way, it makes me feel better. You
seem like a decent guy, and I'm sorry you're bothered by it. But I have
to ask, why am I the one being singled out? Where were you on the
Primerica BS, or the Paul & Brian discussions, or the Prodigy Sux and
Brian discussions?
Sometimes bringing a little personality into the discussions is a good
thing. It allows one to more accurately evaluate the source of any info
read here.
Don't let the small stuff bother you so much. I don't see his posts, but
I'd be willing to bet the farm that each and every one of my posts get a
reply from him. He reads every post in a desperate effort to learn
something and then when he sees something he likes, he tries to take
credit for it.
Paul Maffia
^Paul Maffia (pau...@eskimo.com) writes:
>> The problem with total idiots like you are that you make mindless
>> recommendations that happen by sheer chance to work out and think you are
>> a genius.
>What's so difficult, Paul? It has been a bull market for as long as I've
>been an adult.
And in that short paragraph of two sentences, you conclusively prove
everything I have said. You don't have a clue, you are the epitome of a
bull market genius, and in the end, anyone following your recommendations
will have done better in a simple bank account.
>> What you can never explain or account for, in this type of situation, is
>> what happens if, as will inevitably happen, you are wrong and he ends up
>> with less and often much less than he started with.
>Sure Paul. After dropping nominally twenty percent, it drops another
>twenty percent. . . not too likely, and then he would be down to 2400 from
>three thousand _presuming_ he was completely buried in and SP500 fund
>rather than a mixture of sector funds with good bull market performance
>characteristics which, as you must know by now, is what I usually recommend.
Not too likely? You really are a totally naive boob! You have no clue what
you recommend.
>Big deal, the risk for return when the market's down outweighs potential
>loss. Think about, Muffy. . . he missed the twenty percentish valley.
>Paul, you are a goof.
I didn't miss a thing!
>> And then when you are sued and lose in court, as you obviously and surely
>> will, you will cry that the system has been unfair to you, when in fact it
>> has rendered a fair and well deserved judgement that you are a total
>> idiot who unnecessarily and by your stupid neglect caused the damage and
>> must pay for it.
>I have never lost an investment client through dissatisfaction. They are
>all idiots, I guess.
Right, just like they have all made 85% a year. Get real! At least try to
make your idiot claims appear real!
>> And then the rest of us end up paying through the nose for our E&O
>> coverage. All because of a complete and total dufass.
>Yeah sure. I pay 20 bucks a month for a million. How much do you pay,
>fuckwad? You know why? Because my ethics in both life insurance and
>investment products is pristine. I may prefer low loads and CDSCd funds,
>but I use low MERd funds, segregated fund wrappers, feeless switching and
>advice, etc. Most importantly, I actively manage all of their accounts
>for no fee. The only error I have made in the last two years is
>consistently underestimating how much influence Mei Li Rubin's comments
>have on impacting the Japanese recovery, but I am ahead of the game today,
>despite the overnight close in Japan and at one o'clock am Friday, I'll be
>celebrating.
Hate to tell, you Brian, your statments here alone, have violated every
stipulation of every code of ethics in the profession.
The difference being that some of us adhere to a publicly expressed code
of ethics that you don't even know exist or would understand if you read
them.
dick_...@juno.com
ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
> I may prefer low loads and CDSCd funds, but I use low MERd funds,
> segregated fund wrappers, feeless switching and advice, etc. Most
> importantly, I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee.
If you get no fees, how do you make a living from this?
------
Unsolicited e-mail subject to minimum $500
processing fee plus collection costs.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
jesc...@erols.com
>
> In article <7313tl$s...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
>
> > I may prefer low loads and CDSCd funds, but I use low MERd funds,
> > segregated fund wrappers, feeless switching and advice, etc. Most
> > importantly, I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee.
>
> If you get no fees, how do you make a living from this?
He gets the commissions and the trailers from the mutual fund company.
He likes to claim that because the mutual fund company is collecting his
fee for him and then passing it on to him, that means he isn't charging
his clients a fee. The fact that money that was in his client's pocket
at the beginning of the day winds up in his pocket at the end of the day
doesn't seem to have made any impression in that thing he calls a brain.
--
Understanding is a three edged sword-
your side, my side, and the truth.
Brian A. Cowper
Ed (fri...@fishinthe.net) writes:
> Jim Titus wrote:
Ed, you're a joke. I'm re-posting, unedited, for all those who read my
posts and have kill-filed yours. I wouldn't want them to miss out.
Brian A. Cowper
Paul Maffia (pau...@eskimo.com) writes:
> ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) writes:
> ^Paul Maffia (pau...@eskimo.com) writes:
>
> I didn't miss a thing!
That's right, Paul; you miss everything.
>>I have never lost an investment client through dissatisfaction. They are
>>all idiots, I guess.
>
> Right, just like they have all made 85% a year. Get real! At least try to
> make your idiot claims appear real!
Many of them have. What's so difficult to figure out, Paul? I have had
them deep into the Nasdaq 100 for years, the fund I like is up close to
seventy percent YTD, the Nasdaq 100 is open to huge spikes and valleys,
and the market in general is in a rut of going on runs and getting
overbought so 'timing' highs and lows is not really all that difficult. .
. sure, picking the exact top or the exact bottom is out of the question,
but the variance is so great that anywhere near is going to show a
pronounced increase in returns. You combine that with my documented
dabbling into Japan, and that I park in an international balanced fund
occasionally for safety, you should be able to see that even if I
miss-timed badly, I could still of had these gains. In fact, discount the
market timing thing altogether and these returns are still possible. You
Paul are not only a fuckwit, but a, well, MORON. . . a real one, though.
> Hate to tell, you Brian, your statments here alone, have violated every
> stipulation of every code of ethics in the profession.
This is a discussion group, dimwit. I'm not selling anything, and even if
I was, they violate nothing. What the hell planet did you descend from?
Planet of the Morons? <Brian trying unsuccessfully to be like his hero
Paul, not being able to lower his intellect low enough to sound plausible>
> The difference being that some of us adhere to a publicly expressed code
> of ethics that you don't even know exist or would understand if you read
> them.
Geez Paul, what code of ethics would that be, and besides you have stated
on many occasions that you do not sell or trade financial services. That
eliminates even bank tellers. I know. . . you sell used cars.
Brian A. Cowper
(dick_...@juno.com) writes:
> In article <7313tl$s...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
>
>> I may prefer low loads and CDSCd funds, but I use low MERd funds,
>> segregated fund wrappers, feeless switching and advice, etc. Most
>> importantly, I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee.
>
> If you get no fees, how do you make a living from this?
It is a value-addition; I get paid by the company with whom the investment
is placed through what is called a trailer, like virtually all investment
brokers. No direct fee is paid by any of my clients for any advice or
action on my part, although I am free to do so. This could be negotiated
up front. What many haven't quite figured out is that many 'fee-based
planners' charge a fee up-front, put their clients in a selection of
no-load funds [maybe] and some loaded funds from which they receive
remuneration from the fund company, or a selection of both funds. In a
worst case scenario, the highly regarded fee-based planner is getting the
same as the commissioned planner and in _addition_ is charging a fee to
the client. That's why I have to laugh at Paul and Edly. They really
have no idea what they are talking about. Any increase in what I get
paid, month to month, is based on _increases_ in my clients portfolio. As
far as feelessness for transactions, I choose only companies which allow
unlimited feeless switching or other transactions, feeless and unlimited
principal guranteeing, etc.
Brian A. Cowper
>> ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) writes:
>> ^Paul Maffia (pau...@eskimo.com) writes:
>>
>> I didn't miss a thing!
>
> That's right, Paul; you miss everything.
>
>>>I have never lost an investment client through dissatisfaction. They are
>>>all idiots, I guess.
>>
>> Right, just like they have all made 85% a year. Get real! At least try to
>> make your idiot claims appear real!
Now, as a little addendum, the fund to which I attribute most of my
success, TAGrowsafe 21st Century, last three months beat the percentage
increase of the SP 500 by ~900%, six months ~160%, and 12 months ~55%.
I'm sorry YTD I don't have, but you've got the picture, I think. Keep in
mind the YTD is actually 65.81%. Today it'll be close to seventy.
NOw take into consideration my admission that I move this fund on a short
term basis, taking advantages of the huge swings in this index [100], does
eighty-five percent return sound unreasonable? Indeed, some are more.
Damn that Japan bashing stick.
My top performing fund last thirty days is a Japanese fund, same family .
. . close to twenty-five. It has outperformed the Nikkei 'cuz of, you
guessed it, currency movements. . . who'd of thunk it, eh Muffy?
Steve Hunter
>
> NOw take into consideration my admission that I move this fund on a short
> term basis, taking advantages of the huge swings in this index [100], does
> eighty-five percent return sound unreasonable? Indeed, some are more.
> Damn that Japan bashing stick.
Active management by a manager that does not charge transaction fees (or
receive commission rebates) reduces the manager's profit by adding
overhead. This is something that many managers are not willing to do
but shows real concern for the client's account value. I consider that
admirable.
Steve Hunter, ULTRA Financial Systems Inc.
http://www.ultrafs.com
Stock Market Timing Strategies.
Jim Titus
(I for one) decide whether or not to read a post largely based on who
the author is. You are one person's whose posts I read, but downloading
is slow enough I have to sometimes wait, and when it turns out to just
be a comment on Brian's personaility I wasted my time. I am willing to
spend a bit of time alerting you to this fact because: possibly part of
your cost/benefit consideration regarding whether to make personal
comments should be that some people will tend to read your posts more if
they can assume that your posts are always on point.
You are right that you never laid out a plan. I just assumed that not
reading his posts was part of a decision to be a total gentleman on this
newsgroup regardless of how you felt he was treating you (and not simply
a more sophisticated way of getting his goat). I am picking on you more
than the other people you mentioned because you have shown that you are
more willing to listen to other people's well-meaning suggestions.
Best regards
Jim
Ed wrote:
dick_...@juno.com
ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
>
> (dick_...@juno.com) writes:
> > In article <7313tl$s...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> > ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
> >
> >> I may prefer low loads and CDSCd funds, but I use low MERd funds,
> >> segregated fund wrappers, feeless switching and advice, etc. Most
> >> importantly, I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee.
> >
> > If you get no fees, how do you make a living from this?
>
> It is a value-addition; I get paid by the company with whom the investment
> is placed through what is called a trailer, like virtually all investment
> brokers. No direct fee is paid by any of my clients for any advice or
> action on my part, although I am free to do so
But you said you managed accounts for no fee, period.
You didn't say clients didn't pay them or that another party did.
You left the impression that you were working for free.
Brian A. Cowper
I figure trailer fees, renewals imply this sort of empathy to my client.
Why should a client to whom I recommend a certain allocation of his
deposit on January 1st not profit from my changed opinion with a client
who I advise on June 1st? My ongoing perception of the market has clearly
changed, hell it changes sometimes on a minute by minute basis. All
clients deserve some sort of monitoring, and I feel I am compensated
through trailer. On a more basic level, when I change my own portfolio,
shouldn't I think about my clients who trust me rebalancing/allocating
their own portfolio? That would be just about all of them.
Brian A. Cowper
Jim Titus (fig...@it.out) writes:
> The main reason I made the request is to let you know that some people
> (I for one) decide whether or not to read a post largely based on who
> the author is. You are one person's whose posts I read, but downloading
> is slow enough I have to sometimes wait, and when it turns out to just
> be a comment on Brian's personaility I wasted my time. I am willing to
> spend a bit of time alerting you to this fact because: possibly part of
> your cost/benefit consideration regarding whether to make personal
> comments should be that some people will tend to read your posts more if
> they can assume that your posts are always on point.
I'm sure Ed is not a stupid person, but aside from his constant help by
searching out URLs [from which even I profit], how exactly does he offer
advice that will allow most of us to achieve exemplary returns on our
investmen dollar? He doesn't.
And I still find it amazing how no one has taken him apart for his sudden
condemnation of buy and hold.
prodi...@juno.com
>>(dick_...@juno.com) writes:
>my ethics in both life insurance and investment products is pristine.
>I may prefer low loads and CDSCd funds, but I >use low MERd funds,
>segregated fund wrappers, feeless switching and advice, etc. Most
>importantly, I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee
>
>>If you get no fees, how do you make a living from this?
>
>It is a value-addition; I get paid by the company with whom the investment
>is placed through what is called a trailer, like virtually all investment
>brokers. No direct fee is paid by any of my clients for any advice or
>action on my part, although I am free to do so.
Since when is a fee from a fund company not a fee, while a fee directly
from a client is a fee? You're playing loose with the truth again.
>What many haven't quite figured out is that many 'fee-based planners'
>charge a fee up-front, put their clients in a selection of no-load funds
>[maybe] and some loaded funds from which they receive remuneration from
>the fund company, or a selection of both funds. In a worst case
>scenario, the highly regarded fee-based planner is getting the same
>as the commissioned planner and in _addition_ is charging a fee to
>the client.
Many people know that "fee-based" is a term invented to fool investors
into thinking they're not paying commissions. In contrast a "fee-only"
planner can't legally take any commissions, not even trailers, although
the majority of planners in the U.S. who call themselves "fee-only" do,
and maybe only about 2,000 planners are truly fee-only.
>That's why I have to laugh at Paul and Edly. They really have no idea
>what they are talking about. Any increase in what I get paid, month
>to month, is based on _increases_ in my clients portfolio.
In other words you're paid only a cut of their account value or a
percentage of their profits? That would be very unusual for a fund
salesman.
Brian A. Cowper
(dick_...@juno.com) writes:
> In article <733qlb$e...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,>> > In article <7313tl$s...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>> > ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
>> >
>> >> I may prefer low loads and CDSCd funds, but I use low MERd funds,
>> >> segregated fund wrappers, feeless switching and advice, etc. Most
>> >
>> > If you get no fees, how do you make a living from this?
>>
>> It is a value-addition; I get paid by the company with whom the investment
>> is placed through what is called a trailer, like virtually all investment
>> brokers. No direct fee is paid by any of my clients for any advice or
>
> But you said you managed accounts for no fee, period.
> You didn't say clients didn't pay them or that another party did.
> You left the impression that you were working for free.
In the same article I mentioned I consider trailer fees and renewals as
adequate compensation. I fail to see the validity of your point. For
your benefit, I stated it again. And now I do it a third time. A client
is already aware of the charges associated with the ongoing administration
of a fund from the fund management's prespective, and they are aware that
in addition, I charge no fees on top of that, my remuneration is through
my individual arrangement with a fund company. Additionally, I only place
my clients with companies where there are no transaction costs associated
with anything, not even redemption, except for any leftover DSCs, but most
importantly switching, principal wrapping, same-day migration and locking.
This is not typical of the industry.
The net result of your post, based on your incomplete understanding of the
thread to which you comment upon, is to erroneously imply there are
additional undivulged fees involved. This is patently incorrect, having
already been discussed in this thread and with the client verbally and
through Prospectus or Summary Information Folder.
In short there are no such fees as a fee-based planner would assess for
simple transactions.
Brian A. Cowper
(prodi...@juno.com) writes:
> ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
>>>(dick_...@juno.com) writes:
>
>>segregated fund wrappers, feeless switching and advice, etc. Most
>>importantly, I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee
>>
>>
>>It is a value-addition; I get paid by the company with whom the investment
>>is placed through what is called a trailer, like virtually all investment
>>brokers. No direct fee is paid by any of my clients for any advice or
>
> Since when is a fee from a fund company not a fee, while a fee directly
> from a client is a fee? You're playing loose with the truth again.
Since I have already discussed with them the nature of how I get paid,
trailer commissions and when they ask me to make a change, or give me
wholesale ability to transact their account, they do so with the
understanding I will not send them an invoice. How many times do you
think I should discuss my fee structure with my client? If there are no
additional fees to be levied, the point is moot.
>>What many haven't quite figured out is that many 'fee-based planners'
>>charge a fee up-front, put their clients in a selection of no-load funds
>>[maybe] and some loaded funds from which they receive remuneration from
>>the fund company, or a selection of both funds. In a worst case
>>scenario, the highly regarded fee-based planner is getting the same
>>as the commissioned planner and in _addition_ is charging a fee to
>>the client.
>
> Many people know that "fee-based" is a term invented to fool investors
> into thinking they're not paying commissions. In contrast a "fee-only"
> planner can't legally take any commissions, not even trailers, although
> the majority of planners in the U.S. who call themselves "fee-only" do,
> and maybe only about 2,000 planners are truly fee-only.
No such thing, here, but I am glad you agree with me that there is no
benefit of going to a fee-based planner, leaving only people who wish to
mismanage there own funds with inadequate knowledge. Typically, they sell
low and buy high.
What you're saying, I guess, is it doesn't really matter who you go to, as
long as they are competent. Well, I agree with you. There are many in my
business who, after the intitial cheque and having placed them in a nice
safe buy, hold, and diversificaiton strategy, forget about their client.
Those of us who continue to scroll our clients accounts always looking for
opportunities, should be commended, and I feel it is a direct relationship
that my future income is primarily based on increased NAV of my client.
In this way my allegiance is vested without _additional_ compensation.
>>That's why I have to laugh at Paul and Edly. They really have no idea
>>what they are talking about. Any increase in what I get paid, month
>>to month, is based on _increases_ in my clients portfolio.
>
> In other words you're paid only a cut of their account value or a
> percentage of their profits? That would be very unusual for a fund
> salesman.
Both, and it is paid by the fund company directly to me. It is a
servicing fee. Those who do not provide service, after the initial
contribution, well shame on them. I have no control. We are not all like
that, and in my case, I do very, very nice things for them. Despite what
you've alluded to in the past, no two of my clients has ever e-mailed you
and said that my expertise sucks. You lied, but I forgive you.
dick_...@juno.com
ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
> Most importantly, I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee.
> > If you get no fees, how do you make a living from this?
> It is a value-addition; I get paid by the company with whom the investment
> is placed through what is called a trailer, like virtually all investment
> brokers. No direct fee is paid by any of my clients for any advice or
> action on my part, although I am free to do so
> > But you said you managed accounts for no fee, period.
> > You didn't say clients didn't pay them or that another party did.
> > You left the impression that you were working for free.
> In the same article I mentioned I consider trailer fees and renewals as
> adequate compensation. I fail to see the validity of your point.
You said, "I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee," not
"I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee paid directly by
them," a significant difference.
------
Unsolicited e-mail subject to minimum $500
processing fee plus collection costs.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Brian A. Cowper
(dick_...@juno.com) writes:
> In article <736i70$6...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
>
>> Most importantly, I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee.
>
>> > If you get no fees, how do you make a living from this?
>
>> It is a value-addition; I get paid by the company with whom the investment
>> is placed through what is called a trailer, like virtually all investment
>> brokers. No direct fee is paid by any of my clients for any advice or
>> action on my part, although I am free to do so
>
>> > But you said you managed accounts for no fee, period.
>> > You didn't say clients didn't pay them or that another party did.
>> > You left the impression that you were working for free.
>
>> In the same article I mentioned I consider trailer fees and renewals as
>> adequate compensation. I fail to see the validity of your point.
>
> You said, "I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee," not
> "I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee paid directly by
> them," a significant difference.
Look Dick, _everyone_ on this newsgroup, including yourself, knows what
and how I do things, and thanks to Ed and Paul, to the point of puking on
themselves. I referred to trailers and renewals in the text of the article.
Those who follow my posts closely and don't listen to the Edly's and
Muffy's realize that everything I've been saying about how to allocate
your assets, buy and hold, diversification has been on the mark. Some of
them are kicking themselves in their butt for having been deceived by the
Edly's and Muffy's for not going with their instincts and listening to the
Brians and the Garys. They would be hugely ahead.
The fact I don't add any extra charges for expertise, unlike most, should
be commended. Because I could if I wanted. But I don't need to, so I don't.
Paul Maffia
>Brian A. Cowper (ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Paul Maffia (pau...@eskimo.com) writes:
>>> ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) writes:
>>> ^Paul Maffia (pau...@eskimo.com) writes:
>>>
>>> I didn't miss a thing!
>>
>> That's right, Paul; you miss everything.
Don't you wish! I long ago tied a bunch of cans to your tail and you are
too stupid to realize it.
>>
>>>>I have never lost an investment client through dissatisfaction. They are
>>>>all idiots, I guess.
>>>
>>> Right, just like they have all made 85% a year. Get real! At least try to
>>> make your idiot claims appear real!
>Now, as a little addendum, the fund to which I attribute most of my
>success, TAGrowsafe 21st Century, last three months beat the percentage
>increase of the SP 500 by ~900%, six months ~160%, and 12 months ~55%.
>I'm sorry YTD I don't have, but you've got the picture, I think. Keep in
>mind the YTD is actually 65.81%. Today it'll be close to seventy.
Yawn!!!
The fact that a fund may or may not be up any particular figure is
meaningless in this discussion. Anyone can claim anything for their
personal performance or for their supposed clients. You tell us you have
been in the Nasdaq 100 for years, but the fund you attribute the majority
of your success to has only been around for two years, hardly an indication
of your claimed long term success rate.
You diligently tell us you work with the most naive possible investors,
and as proof of the great success they have achieved you once told us
of one who seriously asked you if he had any money left after one of the
recent bear runs, and you proudly told us how you were able to reassure
him. The story, of course, merely points out BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION what a
poor job you do in teaching your clients (IF YOU REALLY HAVE ANY which is
doubtful) anything. But then we don't expect that you could, after all, to
teach someone something you must at least possess a fund of knowledge
greater than the person you are trying to instruct.
See what I mean Brian, you make preposterous claims, and are too stupid to
realize just how preposterous they are.
>NOw take into consideration my admission that I move this fund on a short
>term basis, taking advantages of the huge swings in this index [100], does
>eighty-five percent return sound unreasonable? Indeed, some are more.
>Damn that Japan bashing stick.
Ha HA HA HA! A simple answer to your simple minded question is yes, it is
unreasonable except by a pure fluke.
>My top performing fund last thirty days is a Japanese fund, same family .
>. . close to twenty-five. It has outperformed the Nikkei 'cuz of, you
>guessed it, currency movements. . . who'd of thunk it, eh Muffy?
>> Many of them have. What's so difficult to figure out, Paul? I have had
>> them deep into the Nasdaq 100 for years, the fund I like is up close to
>> seventy percent YTD, the Nasdaq 100 is open to huge spikes and valleys,
>> and the market in general is in a rut of going on runs and getting
>> overbought so 'timing' highs and lows is not really all that difficult. .
>> . sure, picking the exact top or the exact bottom is out of the question,
>> but the variance is so great that anywhere near is going to show a
>> pronounced increase in returns. You combine that with my documented
>> dabbling into Japan, and that I park in an international balanced fund
>> occasionally for safety, you should be able to see that even if I
>> miss-timed badly, I could still of had these gains. In fact, discount the
>> market timing thing altogether and these returns are still possible. You
>> Paul are not only a fuckwit, but a, well, MORON. . . a real one, though.
Blather, blather and as usual back to your juvenile scatology because you
don't command enough English. Duh, you have had them in it for years, in a
fund that just does not have that long a history, your own statement. What
a joke.
>>> Hate to tell, you Brian, your statments here alone, have violated every
>>> stipulation of every code of ethics in the profession.
>>
>> This is a discussion group, dimwit. I'm not selling anything, and even if
>> I was, they violate nothing. What the hell planet did you descend from?
>> Planet of the Morons? <Brian trying unsuccessfully to be like his hero
>> Paul, not being able to lower his intellect low enough to sound plausible>
Codes of ethics for professionals don't just apply when they are in a
selling situation. It is part of their daily life. And Brian, I hate to
point out you don't have to try to lower your intellectual level, it is
already at base level.
So you err on two fronts. You err in your implied claim that a code of
ethics would only apply if you were in a selling situation and you err in
claiming that none of your statments violate them.
It is you who said, it is no one's business what you earn when you sell a
client something. And every code of ethics in the investment game has as
one of its primary stipulations that it is the duty of the seller to fully
disclose.
You admit to dealing with the naivest of investors and proudly proclaim
you frequently trade their money by playing "where is the index going"
guessing game. You even love to hurl your juvenile scatology at someone
who advises that someone who has a short term need for some cash they have
accumulated should invest it in short term vehicles and you think it is
the height of stupidity and believe it should be invested at not just risk
but at high risk.
Both instances fall into the category of the appropriateness of the
investments recommended to a client, an ethical tenet of every investment
code of ethics, and your IGNORANT position violates that tenet.
I could of course go on, but why waste time. Virtually everyone of your
posts illustrates the point.
>>> The difference being that some of us adhere to a publicly expressed code
>>> of ethics that you don't even know exist or would understand if you read
>>> them.
>>
>> Geez Paul, what code of ethics would that be, and besides you have stated
>> on many occasions that you do not sell or trade financial services. That
>> eliminates even bank tellers. I know. . . you sell used cars.
And then we return to more concrete proof of your complete imbecility.
I'll state it again, try real hard with a dictionary and comprehension may
finally strike. After all wonders never cease, the meaning of my
statement finally penetrated even TuKuul. But for other readers, compare
my following statement to Brian's expressed understanding of it above.
I have never, do not now and will never sell an insurance policy of any
kind to anyone for any purpose and that also applies to any other
financial product.
To help such a weak intellect here are some questions to answer:
1. Do the words "insurance policy" or "financial product" mean the same
thing as "financial service"?
2. Do the following two statements say the same thing? "I don't sell
financial products." "I do sell a financial service."
3. Do bank tellers sell financial products?
4. Do car salesman sell financial products?
5. Does Brian Cowper have the faintest clue what he is talking about?
6. Having naive investors frequently trade an index fund to try to
capitalize on market movement is both an intelligent and ethical way for a
shoe clerk to earn a living?
7. Blathering about a "new investment paradigm" that you don't understand
is a clever way to prove your mental superiority?
By the way Brian, on this last one, were you aware that one well know
investment guru, who actually is listened to by professionals who know
what they are doing recently said that we went from a new paradigm to the
tried and true in just one day!
I doubt it! You would actually have to have read something other than
Captain Marvel's Whiz Bang Investment Book, the only investment guide you
will ever need.
Paul Maffia
>It is a value-addition; I get paid by the company with whom the investment
>is placed through what is called a trailer, like virtually all investment
>brokers. No direct fee is paid by any of my clients for any advice or
>action on my part,
What a misleading bunch of pure horse manure. Call it what you will, you
are paid a commission. Of course it is paid by the company you work for.
But it is collected from the client and serves to reduce his rate of
return.
> although I am free to do so. This could be negotiated
>up front. What many haven't quite figured out is that many 'fee-based
>planners' charge a fee up-front, put their clients in a selection of
>no-load funds [maybe] and some loaded funds from which they receive
>remuneration from the fund company, or a selection of both funds.
And of course you just described an unethical jerk who can and will lose
his license as well as face fines and/or imprisonment when caught in the
states and I would be willing to bet in Canada too.
> In a
>worst case scenario, the highly regarded fee-based planner is getting the
>same as the commissioned planner and in _addition_ is charging a fee to
>the client. That's why I have to laugh at Paul and Edly. They really
>have no idea what they are talking about.
Sorry ignoramus, it is you who have absolutely no idea what you are
talking about!!
You describe a crook and think, as you usually do based on no evidence
whatsoever, that anyone who is a fee-only advisor must be a crook and do
the despicable things your despicable excuse of a mind attributes to them.
> Any increase in what I get
>paid, month to month, is based on _increases_ in my clients portfolio. As
>far as feelessness for transactions, I choose only companies which allow
>unlimited feeless switching or other transactions, feeless and unlimited
>principal guranteeing, etc.
What a total boob!!!
Paul Maffia
> (prodi...@juno.com) writes:
>> ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
>>>>(dick_...@juno.com) writes:
>> Since when is a fee from a fund company not a fee, while a fee directly
>> from a client is a fee? You're playing loose with the truth again.
>Since I have already discussed with them the nature of how I get paid,
>trailer commissions and when they ask me to make a change, or give me
>wholesale ability to transact their account, they do so with the
>understanding I will not send them an invoice. How many times do you
>think I should discuss my fee structure with my client? If there are no
>additional fees to be levied, the point is moot.
OH, now you tell us you discuss, "... the nature of ho I get paid, ... ."
when just last week you said in no uncertain terms it was none of their
business.
Did you forget that inconsistency is one of the benchmarks of a weak mind?
Or didn't your mother ever tell you to always tell the truth because then
you don't have to remember what you said or have any fear that it will
come back and bite you?
>>>What many haven't quite figured out is that many 'fee-based planners'
>>>charge a fee up-front, put their clients in a selection of no-load funds
>>>[maybe] and some loaded funds from which they receive remuneration from
>>>the fund company, or a selection of both funds. In a worst case
>>>scenario, the highly regarded fee-based planner is getting the same
>>>as the commissioned planner and in _addition_ is charging a fee to
>>>the client.
>>
>> Many people know that "fee-based" is a term invented to fool investors
>> into thinking they're not paying commissions. In contrast a "fee-only"
>> planner can't legally take any commissions, not even trailers, although
>> the majority of planners in the U.S. who call themselves "fee-only" do,
>> and maybe only about 2,000 planners are truly fee-only.
>No such thing, here, but I am glad you agree with me that there is no
>benefit of going to a fee-based planner, leaving only people who wish to
>mismanage there own funds with inadequate knowledge. Typically, they sell
>low and buy high.
>What you're saying, I guess, is it doesn't really matter who you go to, as
>long as they are competent.
Actually he said no such thing, but IF he had, we know that would exclude
you since you don't meet the criteria.
> Well, I agree with you. There are many in my
>business who, after the intitial cheque and having placed them in a nice
>safe buy, hold, and diversificaiton strategy, forget about their client.
>Those of us who continue to scroll our clients accounts always looking for
>opportunities, should be commended, and I feel it is a direct relationship
>that my future income is primarily based on increased NAV of my client.
>In this way my allegiance is vested without _additional_ compensation.
One of the funniest arguments to justify commissions I have ever seen.
>>>That's why I have to laugh at Paul and Edly. They really have no idea
>>>what they are talking about. Any increase in what I get paid, month
>>>to month, is based on _increases_ in my clients portfolio.
Not really, you get paid that same trailer rate even when their account
goes down in value. Oh I forgot, in the world of Brians "New Paradigm"
client's account values never go down because it has been a bull market
during all of Brian's adult life.
>> In other words you're paid only a cut of their account value or a
>> percentage of their profits? That would be very unusual for a fund
>> salesman.
>Both, and it is paid by the fund company directly to me. It is a
>servicing fee. Those who do not provide service, after the initial
>contribution, well shame on them. I have no control. We are not all like
>that, and in my case, I do very, very nice things for them. Despite what
>you've alluded to in the past, no two of my clients has ever e-mailed you
>and said that my expertise sucks. You lied, but I forgive you.
Ha Ha Ha Ha!!
Brian you have me laughing so hard that I can be mistaken for Santa
Claus.
Paul Maffia
>In article <733qlb$e...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
>>
>> (dick_...@juno.com) writes:
>> > In article <7313tl$s...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>> > ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
>> >
>> >> I may prefer low loads and CDSCd funds, but I use low MERd funds,
>> >> segregated fund wrappers, feeless switching and advice, etc. Most
>> >> importantly, I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee.
>> >
>> > If you get no fees, how do you make a living from this?
>>
>> It is a value-addition; I get paid by the company with whom the investment
>> is placed through what is called a trailer, like virtually all investment
>> brokers. No direct fee is paid by any of my clients for any advice or
>> action on my part, although I am free to do so
>But you said you managed accounts for no fee, period.
>You didn't say clients didn't pay them or that another party did.
>You left the impression that you were working for free.
Oh Gee caught again!!
But don't forget, the gospel according to Brian is that the client does
not pay this!!
Paul Maffia
ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) writes:
>In short there are no such fees as a fee-based planner would assess for
>simple transactions.
How do you know what a fee-based planner charges and on what basis? You
have amply demonstrated you have no clue what fee-based planners charge,
you have no idea what they do?
You have demonstrated time and time again that you are unable to grasp
the simple fact that there are NO transaction fees. None, not a single
penny, even a single Canadian Penny. It is beyond your comprehesion and
you proudly proclaim your drivel as if you do.
Go back to your dictionary, idiot! Try to learn what the words "nothing'
"zero" "no transaction cost" mean.
Brian A. Cowper
Paul Maffia (pau...@eskimo.com) writes:
> ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) writes:
>>Brian A. Cowper (ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>> Paul Maffia (pau...@eskimo.com) writes:
>>>> ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) writes:
>>>> ^Paul Maffia (pau...@eskimo.com) writes:
Oh my, Paul; aren't you verbose today:
>>>> I didn't miss a thing!
>>>
>>> That's right, Paul; you miss everything.
>
> Don't you wish! I long ago tied a bunch of cans to your tail and you are
> too stupid to realize it.
>
>>>>>I have never lost an investment client through dissatisfaction. They are
>>>>>all idiots, I guess.
>>>>
>>>> Right, just like they have all made 85% a year. Get real! At least try to
>>>> make your idiot claims appear real!
>
>>Now, as a little addendum, the fund to which I attribute most of my
>>success, TAGrowsafe 21st Century, last three months beat the percentage
>>increase of the SP 500 by ~900%, six months ~160%, and 12 months ~55%.
>>I'm sorry YTD I don't have, but you've got the picture, I think. Keep in
>>mind the YTD is actually 65.81%. Today it'll be close to seventy.
>
> Yawn!!!
>
> The fact that a fund may or may not be up any particular figure is
> meaningless in this discussion. Anyone can claim anything for their
> personal performance or for their supposed clients. You tell us you have
> been in the Nasdaq 100 for years, but the fund you attribute the majority
> of your success to has only been around for two years, hardly an indication
> of your claimed long term success rate.
Before Transamerica, we were with ING which has a very nice international
selection of funds principally managed by America's progenitors. I think
I mentioned them in a previous post.
> You diligently tell us you work with the most naive possible investors,
> and as proof of the great success they have achieved you once told us
> of one who seriously asked you if he had any money left after one of the
> recent bear runs, and you proudly told us how you were able to reassure
> him. The story, of course, merely points out BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION what a
> poor job you do in teaching your clients (IF YOU REALLY HAVE ANY which is
> doubtful) anything. But then we don't expect that you could, after all, to
> teach someone something you must at least possess a fund of knowledge
> greater than the person you are trying to instruct.
My job is not to teach them anything, Fuckwit Muffy; it is to allay their
collective fears in jumping into things that many have only heard or seen
on tv or radio. While many of my clients are introductory, to be sure, I
take great pride in showing them exceptional profits all the time in stark
contrast to many mamsy-pamsy planners who really don't understand the
concept our grandfathers told us, that is to make hay while the sun shines.
They don't want me to teach them, Paul.
BTW, I'm sorry to hear _Dentistry For Dummies_ wasn't all it was cracked
up to be. Might I suggest you had better luck with _Lobotomy Made Easy_?
> See what I mean Brian, you make preposterous claims, and are too stupid to
> realize just how preposterous they are.
Not preposterous at all. In fact, given that I described in advance what
I was going to do, they are really quite believable. You're having
difficulty grasping again, aren't you Paul?
Man, you are _really_ stupid.
> It is you who said, it is no one's business what you earn when you sell a
> client something. And every code of ethics in the investment game has as
> one of its primary stipulations that it is the duty of the seller to fully
> disclose.
No, I have to discuss _how_ I earn. Has nothing to do with
quantification. My client has to know how much he _pays_. That's it
fuckwit.
> You admit to dealing with the naivest of investors and proudly proclaim
> you frequently trade their money by playing "where is the index going"
> guessing game. You even love to hurl your juvenile scatology at someone
> who advises that someone who has a short term need for some cash they have
> accumulated should invest it in short term vehicles and you think it is
> the height of stupidity and believe it should be invested at not just risk
> but at high risk.
Sure, we have been principally invested in the Nasdaq 100; how stupid of
me. What appears to be obvious to me escapes your limited mentality.
Deal with it Paul, that's not my problem, that's yours.
> Both instances fall into the category of the appropriateness of the
> investments recommended to a client, an ethical tenet of every investment
> code of ethics, and your IGNORANT position violates that tenet.
I already explained I wrap the funds; let me explain again. For a
virtually insignificant value addition fee, my clients can wade in balls
deep into NasfuckingDaq One Hundred, in some of the most volatile of all
the performing funds without need to worry about their principal, and
after having nearly trebled their investment in just over two years, can
lock in this gain, making the new value the principally guaranteed amount.
Imagine. . . and then fuck off, Paul. You are useless.
> I could of course go on, but why waste time. Virtually everyone of your
> posts illustrates the point.
Yup.
<Snip of some of Jimbo's stuff>
You've gotta laugh, man.
_Lobotomy Made Easy_
Brian A. Cowper
>>> ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
>>>>>(dick_...@juno.com) writes:
>
>>Since I have already discussed with them the nature of how I get paid,
>>trailer commissions and when they ask me to make a change, or give me
>>wholesale ability to transact their account, they do so with the
>>understanding I will not send them an invoice. How many times do you
>>think I should discuss my fee structure with my client? If there are no
>>additional fees to be levied, the point is moot.
>
> OH, now you tell us you discuss, "... the nature of ho I get paid, ... ."
> when just last week you said in no uncertain terms it was none of their
> business.
Fuck Paul you're stupid. 'What' and 'how' are two different concepts.
Does the word 'quantify' register in your pea-brain?
Really? My income is increased by performance. I take money very
seriously.
>>>>That's why I have to laugh at Paul and Edly. They really have no idea
>>>>what they are talking about. Any increase in what I get paid, month
>>>>to month, is based on _increases_ in my clients portfolio.
>
> Not really, you get paid that same trailer rate even when their account
> goes down in value. Oh I forgot, in the world of Brians "New Paradigm"
> client's account values never go down because it has been a bull market
> during all of Brian's adult life.
What meanings of the word 'increase' do you understand? Let's work it
backwards, Ed. I willing to help you, here.
>>> In other words you're paid only a cut of their account value or a
>>> percentage of their profits? That would be very unusual for a fund
>>> salesman.
>
>>Both, and it is paid by the fund company directly to me. It is a
>>servicing fee. Those who do not provide service, after the initial
>>contribution, well shame on them. I have no control. We are not all like
>>that, and in my case, I do very, very nice things for them. Despite what
>>you've alluded to in the past, no two of my clients has ever e-mailed you
>>and said that my expertise sucks. You lied, but I forgive you.
>
> Ha Ha Ha Ha!!
>
> Brian you have me laughing so hard that I can be mistaken for Santa
> Claus.
Sure Ed. Be sure to wipe the foam from the corners of your mouth.
Brian A. Cowper
>>simple transactions.
>
> How do you know what a fee-based planner charges and on what basis? You
> have amply demonstrated you have no clue what fee-based planners charge,
> you have no idea what they do?
>
> You have demonstrated time and time again that you are unable to grasp
> the simple fact that there are NO transaction fees. None, not a single
> penny, even a single Canadian Penny. It is beyond your comprehesion and
> you proudly proclaim your drivel as if you do.
>
> Go back to your dictionary, idiot! Try to learn what the words "nothing'
> "zero" "no transaction cost" mean.
Wrong.
Brian A. Cowper
>>is placed through what is called a trailer, like virtually all investment
>>brokers. No direct fee is paid by any of my clients for any advice or
>>action on my part,
>
> are paid a commission. Of course it is paid by the company you work for.
> But it is collected from the client and serves to reduce his rate of
> return.
He has already been told about expenses taken from NAV and he knows I get
paid by commission. Your problem is expansive, Paul. Get help.
>> although I am free to do so. This could be negotiated
>>up front. What many haven't quite figured out is that many 'fee-based
>>planners' charge a fee up-front, put their clients in a selection of
>>no-load funds [maybe] and some loaded funds from which they receive
>>remuneration from the fund company, or a selection of both funds.
>
> And of course you just described an unethical jerk who can and will lose
> his license as well as face fines and/or imprisonment when caught in the
> states and I would be willing to bet in Canada too.
>
Look, you useless piece of shit, I said some do this. Did I say I do
this? NO. Get it straight. You're making yourself look like a complete
asshole, and in order to protect myself and clarify the issues, a few
people are going to group me in with you. Fortunately, I think most
follow the inanity of your argument.
>> In a
>>worst case scenario, the highly regarded fee-based planner is getting the
>>same as the commissioned planner and in _addition_ is charging a fee to
>>the client. That's why I have to laugh at Paul and Edly. They really
>>have no idea what they are talking about.
>
> Sorry ignoramus, it is you who have absolutely no idea what you are
> talking about!!
Sure, I'm in the industry. I know nothing about how my brethren work.
> You describe a crook and think, as you usually do based on no evidence
> whatsoever, that anyone who is a fee-only advisor must be a crook and do
> the despicable things your despicable excuse of a mind attributes to them.
Just as you imply the opposite? And I _never_ speak in absolutes and
totality as you do, Paul. You are an idiot.
>> Any increase in what I get
>>paid, month to month, is based on _increases_ in my clients portfolio. As
>>far as feelessness for transactions, I choose only companies which allow
>>unlimited feeless switching or other transactions, feeless and unlimited
>>principal guranteeing, etc.
>
> What a total boob!!!
Geez, I would've thought you liked the absence of fees, Muffy. You can
use plastic wood to fill up the holes in your forehead to decrease the
likelihood of further infection.
David P
Maffia) wrote:
> dick_...@juno.com writes:
>
> >In article <733qlb$e...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> > ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
> >>
> >> (dick_...@juno.com) writes:
> >> > In article <7313tl$s...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> >> > ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I may prefer low loads and CDSCd funds, but I use low MERd funds,
> >> >> segregated fund wrappers, feeless switching and advice, etc. Most
> >> >> importantly, I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee.
> >> >
> >> > If you get no fees, how do you make a living from this?
> >>
> >> It is a value-addition; I get paid by the company with whom the investment
> >> is placed through what is called a trailer, like virtually all investment
> >> brokers. No direct fee is paid by any of my clients for any advice or
> >> action on my part, although I am free to do so
>
> >But you said you managed accounts for no fee, period.
> >You didn't say clients didn't pay them or that another party did.
> >You left the impression that you were working for free.
>
> Oh Gee caught again!!
>
> But don't forget, the gospel according to Brian is that the client does
> not pay this!!
> --
Actually, there's one trust company in Canada (as one I'm aware of) that
does this sort of thing, giving an impression that fund advisors are
working for free, but instead are getting commissions in a form of trailer
fees. The catch? The clients can't take out the money within the grace
period, and if they do,
they will be penalized for doing so.
This is so that the clients don't switch to different companies, just
taking off only with pure profits and having the fund companies to pay
brokers for commissions doing that. Not so easy.
However, it had caused Dynamic Mutual Fund to leave in disgust over this
matter.
I wonder if Brian A.Cowper is working for this trust company or any
company that practice this particular deceptive trade.
--
Please remove "nospam" when replying personally via email. Thanks.
*******************************************************************
umir...@uniserve.com
*******************************************************************
David P
> "I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee paid directly by
> them," a significant difference.
>
That's true. For no-load funds, if the clients redeem the account before
the grace period, there will be a penalty imposed to the client and the
fee is the fee used to compensate the brokers in a form of trailer fees in
which the fund company holds it until the clients' accounts have exceeded
the grace period.
If clients redeem beyond the grace period, there is no sales commission
fee paid directly to the brokers by them, except maybe a transaction fee
if funds do not belong to the same family. The transaction fee is peanuts
by the way.
This is in Canada. Don't know how it works in the states.
So in a way, SOMEBODY is getting paid. But technically, it sounds like
there is no sales commission, although that is not entirely true.
This sort of thing is really going on, expecially noted for our Canadian
banks with their trademarked funds and not with the 3rd party ones.
However, there is a peice of news reported on an incident expecially with
a trust company here in Canada advertising access to hundreds of funds
(not only their own trademarked ones) without a sales commission and has
caused confusion and anger among some fund companies, in particular,
Dynamic Mutual Fund to leave.
David P
> into thinking they're not paying commissions. In contrast a "fee-only"
> planner can't legally take any commissions, not even trailers, although
> the majority of planners in the U.S. who call themselves "fee-only" do,
> and maybe only about 2,000 planners are truly fee-only.
>
In Canada, fee based planners actually takes a fee per hour ranging from
say $80-100 /hr to start with. Usually takes about 5-8 hrs total whenever
you
need them to do an assessment.
They give you advice based upon what your financial goals are. They
evaluate your portfolio, but it's up to you to buy your own securities
based on the advice given by the planner or advisor.
In Canada, we have RRSP, which is probably similar to your 401k plan, but
ours are the most generous of all in North America.
Most plans are run self-directed, meaning the account holder commands the
course of the portfolio.
However, there are commission based planners or advisor that will direct
your self-directed portfolio and achieve the financial goals to set
earlier by managing your portfolio for a commission.
Discount brokers who don't offer management offers wrap accounts simply
for this reason.
Good or bad. That's up to people who use them to decide.
I tell you that in Canada, there are good and bad advisors. That's why,
it's a good idea to interview them carefully and know the terms of the
financial market. If not, there are scammers out there who will pick on
your portfolio to a slow death.
dick_...@juno.com
ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
> > You said, "I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee," not
> > "I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee paid directly by
> > them," a significant difference.
>
> Look Dick, _everyone_ on this newsgroup, including yourself, knows what
> and how I do things, and thanks to Ed and Paul, to the point of puking on
> themselves.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
It seems that the worst accusations against you are true after all.
Brian A. Cowper
David P (umir...@nospam.uniserve.com) writes:
> In article <73afia$pis$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, pau...@eskimo.com (Paul
> Maffia) wrote:
>> dick_...@juno.com writes:
>> >> > In article <7313tl$s...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> matter.
Huh? Dynamic is part of Dundee, now. I like a couple of Dynamic sector
funds when buying dips associated with major index divergences, like
Dynamic Precious Metals, which I've been buy for about a month, and Global
Resources, same.
Think about it. When assessing likelihoods, in the next six months,
what's the chance that resource based funds are going to hold their own or
prosper and major indexes are going to dip. . . again? Gold can only go
so low before the cost of production closes mines, yaknow?
I'd say _any_ resource based fund is an incredible buy right now. You
heard it here.
Brian A. Cowper
David P (umir...@nospam.uniserve.com) writes:
> In article <73afia$pis$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, pau...@eskimo.com (Paul
> Maffia) wrote:
>> dick_...@juno.com writes:
>> >In article <733qlb$e...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>> > ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
>> >> (dick_...@juno.com) writes:
>> >> > In article <7313tl$s...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>> >> > ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
>> >> >
> matter.
> I wonder if Brian A.Cowper is working for this trust company or any
> company that practice this particular deceptive trade.
This was very informative; you've said absolutely nothing. All banks and
trust company employees I am aware of are salaried employees. You would
probably be shocked what poor wages bank employees earn. I have a client
who sells mutual funds for Toronto Dominion, worked there for ten years.
He makes 23,000.00 annually. He custodians a couple of hockey players who
make two million annually and he comes to _me_ for his investment advice.
Go figure? I must be so stupid. Mind you, I wouldn't mind a piece of his
activity.
Brian A. Cowper
David P (umir...@nospam.uniserve.com) writes:
>> Many people know that "fee-based" is a term invented to fool investors
>> into thinking they're not paying commissions. In contrast a "fee-only"
>> planner can't legally take any commissions, not even trailers, although
>> the majority of planners in the U.S. who call themselves "fee-only" do,
>> and maybe only about 2,000 planners are truly fee-only.
>
> In Canada, fee based planners actually takes a fee per hour ranging from
> say $80-100 /hr to start with. Usually takes about 5-8 hrs total whenever
> you need them to do an assessment.
>
> They give you advice based upon what your financial goals are. They
> evaluate your portfolio, but it's up to you to buy your own securities
> based on the advice given by the planner or advisor.
> In Canada, we have RRSP, which is probably similar to your 401k plan, but
> ours are the most generous of all in North America.
> Most plans are run self-directed, meaning the account holder commands the
> course of the portfolio.
This is not true, sorry. Until very recently the principle reason for
self-directed plans was to achieve stipulated foreign content parameters.
This is no longer the case.
> However, there are commission based planners or advisor that will direct
> your self-directed portfolio and achieve the financial goals to set
> earlier by managing your portfolio for a commission.
> Discount brokers who don't offer management offers wrap accounts simply
> for this reason.
I'm sorry, I don't follow you.
> Good or bad. That's up to people who use them to decide.
>
> I tell you that in Canada, there are good and bad advisors. That's why,
> it's a good idea to interview them carefully and know the terms of the
> financial market. If not, there are scammers out there who will pick on
> your portfolio to a slow death.
Absolutely. Churning exists in all financial categories, but you are
referring, I believe, to churning of margin accounts and the purchase of
stocks, generating commissions. Churning of fees could also apply to fund
families, switching from one family to another and invoking a sales
charge. Tactics often used by planners are "the old fund manager who I
liked moved to this company, it is my recommendation we switch and follow
Veronica; there may be a small fee involved, but it is insignificant
compared to the potential gains we can muster. Of course I can't gurantee
this, but, in my opinion it is worth the risk, thankyouverymuch. . . TING!"
Paul Maffia
>That's true. For no-load funds, if the clients redeem the account before
>the grace period, there will be a penalty imposed to the client and the
>fee is the fee used to compensate the brokers in a form of trailer fees in
>which the fund company holds it until the clients' accounts have exceeded
>the grace period.
What do people who have no idea what they are talking about insist on
posting total drivel?
By definition a no-load fund is a fund that does not pay anyone to sell
the fund for them in any shape manner or form; front loaded, a
disappearing CDSC with extra expenses tacked on, semi-loaded, etc..
NO-LOAD FUNDS HAVE NO GRACE PERIOD, IMPOSE NO PENALTIES IF THE FUND IS
REDEEMED BEFORE SOME NON-EXISTING GRACE PERIOD AND THEY DON'T COMPENSATE
BROKERS IN THE FORM OF TRAILER FEES.
>If clients redeem beyond the grace period, there is no sales commission
>fee paid directly to the brokers by them, except maybe a transaction fee
>if funds do not belong to the same family. The transaction fee is peanuts
>by the way.
Again, complete and utter nonsense, even in Canada. No matter who cuts the
actual check or when that pays the broker it ALWAYS, EVEN IN CANADA COMES
OUT OF THE INVESTOR'S HIDE.
>This is in Canada. Don't know how it works in the states.
>So in a way, SOMEBODY is getting paid. But technically, it sounds like
>there is no sales commission, although that is not entirely true.
That is the only 100% accurate statement you made.
This battle was long ago fought in the states and resolved in favor of the
investor. IF SOMEONE GETS PAID FOR SELLING A FUND TO AN INVESTOR, no
matter how or when that check goes to the sales person, it is by law in
the US a loaded fund and must be referred to as such at all times, by the
fund, any of its representatives and anyone who sells it, even when they
are not in a sales situation.
>This sort of thing is really going on, expecially noted for our Canadian
>banks with their trademarked funds and not with the 3rd party ones.
>However, there is a peice of news reported on an incident expecially with
>a trust company here in Canada advertising access to hundreds of funds
>(not only their own trademarked ones) without a sales commission and has
>caused confusion and anger among some fund companies, in particular,
>Dynamic Mutual Fund to leave.
The problem is self-evident. And until Canada resolves this in favor of
the investor, the problem with the continual misrepresentation of reality
will continue.
Its bad enough here, where this kind of BS is illegal.
Paul Maffia
>Paul Maffia (pau...@eskimo.com) writes:
>>
>> What a misleading bunch of pure horse manure. Call it what you will, you
>> are paid a commission. Of course it is paid by the company you work for.
>> But it is collected from the client and serves to reduce his rate of
>> return.
>He has already been told about expenses taken from NAV and he knows I get
>paid by commission. Your problem is expansive, Paul. Get help.
That is not what you said before. In fact you were most vehement (and
probably truthful in expressing the state of your alleged mind) when you
said it was, "... none of their damn business."
>>> although I am free to do so. This could be negotiated
>>>up front. What many haven't quite figured out is that many 'fee-based
>>>planners' charge a fee up-front, put their clients in a selection of
>>>no-load funds [maybe] and some loaded funds from which they receive
>>>remuneration from the fund company, or a selection of both funds.
>>
>> And of course you just described an unethical jerk who can and will lose
>> his license as well as face fines and/or imprisonment when caught in the
>> states and I would be willing to bet in Canada too.
>>
>Look, you useless piece of shit, I said some do this. Did I say I do
>this? NO. Get it straight. You're making yourself look like a complete
>asshole, and in order to protect myself and clarify the issues, a few
>people are going to group me in with you. Fortunately, I think most
>follow the inanity of your argument.
They sure do follow my argument which HIGHLIGHTS THE INANITY of your
argument. I see that I backed you into your corner again, your juvenile
language always comes out.
>>> In a
>>>worst case scenario, the highly regarded fee-based planner is getting the
>>>same as the commissioned planner and in _addition_ is charging a fee to
>>>the client. That's why I have to laugh at Paul and Edly. They really
>>>have no idea what they are talking about.
>>
>> Sorry ignoramus, it is you who have absolutely no idea what you are
>> talking about!!
>Sure, I'm in the industry. I know nothing about how my brethren work.
Brian, I honestly don't think you know how you work, much less any
"brethren" who must suffer the indignity of being in the same business
with you.
>> You describe a crook and think, as you usually do based on no evidence
>> whatsoever, that anyone who is a fee-only advisor must be a crook and do
>> the despicable things your despicable excuse of a mind attributes to them.
>Just as you imply the opposite? And I _never_ speak in absolutes and
>totality as you do, Paul. You are an idiot.
Come now Brian, read your own gibberish, you are constantly speaking, "...
in absolutes and totality ... ." According to you, quoted in this very
note, every fee-based planner is a crook who double loads their fees on
top of the commissions they earn. You constantly and absolutely harp on
the fact that your clients don't pay you and you are sainted because you
don't charge them anything in addition to the the high fees and trailers
the company pays you, as if somehow the poor naive investor you told us
you service don't get their pockets picked to provide you those fees.
>>> Any increase in what I get
>>>paid, month to month, is based on _increases_ in my clients portfolio. As
>>>far as feelessness for transactions, I choose only companies which allow
>>>unlimited feeless switching or other transactions, feeless and unlimited
>>>principal guranteeing, etc.
>>
>> What a total boob!!!
>Geez, I would've thought you liked the absence of fees, Muffy. You can
>use plastic wood to fill up the holes in your forehead to decrease the
>likelihood of further infection.
What lack of fees Brian. The only absence here is the truth. You get your
fee, you don't extract it by asking for a check from the client paid to
you, but the company takes it out of his account and pays it to you.
Reality, for someone who floats away in some fantacy world, is your
clients pay you very high fees, and you yourself have described them as
high.
Get real!!!
At least when my client has paid me my fee, it costs them nothing to buy
the funds I advise them to buy, and if they want to be stupid like you and
trade because they believe in your idiot "new paradigm" it does not cost
them a penny to sell that fund nor to buy another.
See dufass, that is what a fee-only planner does for people.
They probably pay me less, much less, then what you extract from their
hides and get much better advise, information and, above all, an education
so they don't get taken by boobs like you.
It is people like you who provide me the best source of new clients, the
people who get tired of dealing with boobs and (yes Brian) morons like
you.
Brian A. Cowper
(dick_...@juno.com) Uncloaking Goofass writes:
> In article <73958v$5...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>> > "I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee paid directly by
>> > them," a significant difference.
>>
>> Look Dick, _everyone_ on this newsgroup, including yourself, knows what
>> and how I do things, and thanks to Ed and Paul, to the point of puking on
>> themselves.
>
> I couldn't have said it better myself.
>
> It seems that the worst accusations against you are true after all.
What? That you ineffectively parse words 'cuz you can't understand English?
If you're going to play the parsing of words game, learn English.
Thanking you in advance. In the new millenia, I look forward to your
posts. Better start now.
Paul Maffia
can find your inconsistent statement within the same sentence no less!
What a riot! Are you trying to be the first on-line Sinefeld? Must have
driven you to the wall again since there is your juvenile mind exposed
again.
>BTW, I'm sorry to hear _Dentistry For Dummies_ wasn't all it was cracked
>up to be. Might I suggest you had better luck with _Lobotomy Made Easy_?
I could probably do more with "Dentistry for Dummies" then you have with
"Investing in a New Paradigm". You really don't have a clue and
demonstrate constantly with your postings. You don't even understand what
you write!!
>> See what I mean Brian, you make preposterous claims, and are too stupid to
>> realize just how preposterous they are.
>Not preposterous at all. In fact, given that I described in advance what
>I was going to do, they are really quite believable. You're having
>difficulty grasping again, aren't you Paul?
Right Brian, you are the first authenticated seer in the history of the
world!
What a brilliant statement! Are you going to tell me my mother wears combat
boots next?
>> It is you who said, it is no one's business what you earn when you sell a
>> client something. And every code of ethics in the investment game has as
>> one of its primary stipulations that it is the duty of the seller to fully
>> disclose.
>No, I have to discuss _how_ I earn. Has nothing to do with
>quantification. My client has to know how much he _pays_. That's it
>fuckwit.
Sorry Brian, that is not what you said even after the concept of full
disclosure was explained. In fact it was only after that explanation that
you made your now famous "Its none of their damn business!" statement.
>> You admit to dealing with the naivest of investors and proudly proclaim
>> you frequently trade their money by playing "where is the index going"
>> guessing game. You even love to hurl your juvenile scatology at someone
>> who advises that someone who has a short term need for some cash they have
>> accumulated should invest it in short term vehicles and you think it is
>> the height of stupidity and believe it should be invested at not just risk
>> but at high risk.
>Sure, we have been principally invested in the Nasdaq 100; how stupid of
>me. What appears to be obvious to me escapes your limited mentality.
>Deal with it Paul, that's not my problem, that's yours.
My problem is your lack of reality base. Did you forget your all too
revealing and instructive statement, that the it has been a bull market
all your adult (possibly chronologically but not mentally) life?
>> Both instances fall into the category of the appropriateness of the
>> investments recommended to a client, an ethical tenet of every investment
>> code of ethics, and your IGNORANT position violates that tenet.
>I already explained I wrap the funds; let me explain again. For a
>virtually insignificant value addition fee, my clients can wade in balls
>deep into NasfuckingDaq One Hundred, in some of the most volatile of all
>the performing funds without need to worry about their principal, and
>after having nearly trebled their investment in just over two years, can
>lock in this gain, making the new value the principally guaranteed amount.
This is your famous wrapped account that I don't understand? Ha Ha Ha Ha,
what a joke. Gee, they only have to die to collect that guaranteed value.
I'll say it again dufass, those products have been around for a minimum of
20 years in the US. And the extra expense does not justify them for most
people. What an absolute joke you are Brian?
>Imagine. . . and then fuck off, Paul. You are useless.
Obviously I have a lot of use, I constantly drive you to the wall to the
extent that you have no answer but to fall back on your juvenile
scatology.
>> I could of course go on, but why waste time. Virtually everyone of your
>> posts illustrates the point.
>Yup.
Gee, a accurate observation at last!
><Snip of some of Jimbo's stuff>
>You've gotta laugh, man.
>_Lobotomy Made Easy_
Whoever did yours must have read the book!
Brian A. Cowper
Paul Maffia (pau...@eskimo.com) writes:
> umir...@nospam.uniserve.com (David P) writes:
>
>
>>That's true. For no-load funds, if the clients redeem the account before
>>the grace period, there will be a penalty imposed to the client and the
>>fee is the fee used to compensate the brokers in a form of trailer fees in
>>which the fund company holds it until the clients' accounts have exceeded
>>the grace period.
>
> What do people who have no idea what they are talking about insist on
> posting total drivel?
You make friends easily Paul, don't you?
> By definition a no-load fund is a fund that does not pay anyone to sell
> the fund for them in any shape manner or form; front loaded, a
> disappearing CDSC with extra expenses tacked on, semi-loaded, etc..
That is not a universal definition, Paul; it is one country's. You are
talking to two Canadians in this thread, sweetie. And furthermore, I am
not convinced that your stated definition is _exactly_ correct; you may be
misrepresenting, but, being from Canada, I will let someone who knows
comment.
> NO-LOAD FUNDS HAVE NO GRACE PERIOD, IMPOSE NO PENALTIES IF THE FUND IS
> REDEEMED BEFORE SOME NON-EXISTING GRACE PERIOD AND THEY DON'T COMPENSATE
> BROKERS IN THE FORM OF TRAILER FEES.
Okay, so the guy used a word not-specific to the industry. Shame on him.
You know what he means, don't you? How do the brokers get paid, Paul. Oh
yes. The magical mystery fee-only planner, I forgot.
>>If clients redeem beyond the grace period, there is no sales commission
>>fee paid directly to the brokers by them, except maybe a transaction fee
>>if funds do not belong to the same family. The transaction fee is peanuts
>>by the way.
>
> Again, complete and utter nonsense, even in Canada. No matter who cuts the
> actual check or when that pays the broker it ALWAYS, EVEN IN CANADA COMES
> OUT OF THE INVESTOR'S HIDE.
Wrong, even in Canada. They will pay regardless of whether a commission
is involved. So, if that's the case, let the planner provide his value
added service and offer expertise.
Christ you're stupid, Paul.
> This battle was long ago fought in the states and resolved in favor of the
> investor. IF SOMEONE GETS PAID FOR SELLING A FUND TO AN INVESTOR, no
> matter how or when that check goes to the sales person, it is by law in
> the US a loaded fund and must be referred to as such at all times, by the
> fund, any of its representatives and anyone who sells it, even when they
> are not in a sales situation.
>
> The problem is self-evident. And until Canada resolves this in favor of
> the investor, the problem with the continual misrepresentation of reality
> will continue.
It is resolved, Paul. What are you talking about? We inform we can get
paid by commission, and we tell our clients what there charges will be.
We can offer them all sorts of options with regard to charges and they
decide.
You really don't understand? And all this time I thought you were just
playing stupid. Little did I know you were. This changes everything.
I'll try to write in future so you can understand without hyperventilating
and drooling down your chin.
> Its bad enough here, where this kind of BS is illegal.
Here, what, as in this newsgroup? There is no BS. Only someone like you
who is incapable of sentient thought. Go back to your primordial soup,
Paul, you single-brain celled moron.
Brian A. Cowper
I must really apologise for engaging Paul, but the jerk never seems to
give up. I feel sorry for those of you who bother to wade through
these versions of Paul's pathetically edited text, levels upon levels of
attributed text, etc.
I am not going to bother responding to the attached drivel, so don't
bother looking through it for my insight. The death benefit, however, to
which Muffy alludes, is patently incorrect and painfully points toward his
abject stupidity and inability to understand concepts which I have
repeated ad nauseum for his benefit.
Paul, you're an idiot and this proves it:
No, but you are a sine-wave. Must be the lobotomy.
--
prodi...@juno.com
dick_...@juno.com wrote:
> In article <73958v$5...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
>
>You said, "I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee," not
>"I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee paid directly by
>them," a significant difference.
>
>>Look Dick, _everyone_ on this newsgroup, including yourself, knows what
>>and how I do things, and thanks to Ed and Paul, to the point of puking on
>>themselves.
>>
>I couldn't have said it better myself.
>
commission common in the U.S., and Brian's trailer fees must total more
than 1/2% a year because he said that anybody who manages $500 million
of assets for just a $2.5M a year is an idiot (like a certain money
management firm that's beaten the S&P 500 for several years but modestly
calls the results a fluke. Actually they'd probably charge not $2.5M
but $2.8M on that $500M - gotta add .06% for the mutual fund expenses).
Brian A. Cowper
(prodi...@juno.com) writes:
> In article <73c35d$r9e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> dick_...@juno.com wrote:
>> In article <73958v$5...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>> ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
>>
>>You said, "I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee," not
>>"I actively manage all of their accounts for no fee paid directly by
>>them," a significant difference.
>>
>>>Look Dick, _everyone_ on this newsgroup, including yourself, knows what
>>>and how I do things, and thanks to Ed and Paul, to the point of puking on
>>>themselves.
>>>
>>I couldn't have said it better myself.
>>
> It seems trailers in Canada are a lot higher than the 1/4% one-time
> commission common in the U.S., and Brian's trailer fees must total more
> than 1/2% a year because he said that anybody who manages $500 million
> of assets for just a $2.5M a year is an idiot (like a certain money
> management firm that's beaten the S&P 500 for several years but modestly
> calls the results a fluke. Actually they'd probably charge not $2.5M
> but $2.8M on that $500M - gotta add .06% for the mutual fund expenses).
Trailer commissions range from .2% to .6% per year of NAV. I think that was
500,000 of assets for 2,500 bucks. You got it slightly wrong.
"M" in Latin is a thousand, perhaps that's where you screwed up. To tell
you the truth, I can't remember the exact nature of the post.
David P
Maffia) wrote:
> umir...@nospam.uniserve.com (David P) writes:
>
>
> >That's true. For no-load funds, if the clients redeem the account before
> >the grace period, there will be a penalty imposed to the client and the
> >fee is the fee used to compensate the brokers in a form of trailer fees in
> >which the fund company holds it until the clients' accounts have exceeded
> >the grace period.
>
> What do people who have no idea what they are talking about insist on
> posting total drivel?
Why do you have to embarrass yourself in front of the public with your
incomplete sense of investment knowledge below.
>
> By definition a no-load fund is a fund that does not pay anyone to sell
> the fund for them in any shape manner or form; front loaded, a
> disappearing CDSC with extra expenses tacked on, semi-loaded, etc..
>
> NO-LOAD FUNDS HAVE NO GRACE PERIOD, IMPOSE NO PENALTIES IF THE FUND IS
> REDEEMED BEFORE SOME NON-EXISTING GRACE PERIOD AND THEY DON'T COMPENSATE
> BROKERS IN THE FORM OF TRAILER FEES.
Read the Canadian securities regulations act for crying out loud! In it,
they allow fund companies to levy a "REDEMPTION CHARGE" if units are sold
within the 90 days of purchase (grace period). Although this is rarely
done, this is bull because some fund companies do it. The trust company I
mentioned earlier was one of them.
A lot of people I've talked to paid this redemption charge when they
redeem early. Illegal? NOT, because the regulation allows it! Bad PR on
the funds'
company part, YES!
Secondly, sales commissions are paid to the financial advisor for the
advise and service, and not to the fund management company with no load
funds. The problem is that, this is so vaguely defined. Who is really a
financial advisor? It is because of that confusion which leads to
problems with a trust company advertising themselves to sell different
kinds of funds without the need to pay a sales commission. Unfortunately,
many of these sales (assumingly brokers with very little knowledge of
useful advice) who sell securities to clients get paid just like
knowledgable financial advisors do!
That's not fair because brokers do not provide the same level of advice
and service as a qualified financial advisor.
This was the explanation given by Dynamic Mutual Funds, and because of
this practice, they left in disgust!
The problem is that, every Canadian fund companies know this and care less
to rectify the situation.
So no Paul, in theory yes, but in the real world Paul, REAL WORLD not high
school economics, it doesn't work the way you think it does.
Third, these commissions are paid in a form of trailer fees.
The story was even published in several financial newspaper. Not true, or
you live a secluded life?
> >If clients redeem beyond the grace period, there is no sales commission
> >fee paid directly to the brokers by them, except maybe a transaction fee
> >if funds do not belong to the same family. The transaction fee is peanuts
> >by the way.
>
> Again, complete and utter nonsense, even in Canada. No matter who cuts the
> actual check or when that pays the broker it ALWAYS, EVEN IN CANADA COMES
> OUT OF THE INVESTOR'S HIDE.
Don't confuse management fees with sales commission paid to the financial
advisor with no load funds.
Again Paul, with no load funds, the sales commission paid out by fund
companies go directly to the client's financial advisor NOT the fund
management company.
Client doesn't pay any commission. So if the client doesn't pay it,
who pays if the client redeems early? Most respectable fund companies
waive this redeem option depending upon ofcourse how much moola you sink
in. But I know some fund companies DO CHARGE this redemption fee. It's
even allowed, so why don't they?
However, every mutual fund manager charges a management fee which in most
cases is paid indirectly by the investor from the fund's assets!
But isn't every fund either load, no-load, low-load or even pseudo-no load
have MER right?
>
> >This is in Canada. Don't know how it works in the states.
>
> >So in a way, SOMEBODY is getting paid. But technically, it sounds like
> >there is no sales commission, although that is not entirely true.
>
> That is the only 100% accurate statement you made.
>
> This battle was long ago fought in the states and resolved in favor of the
> investor. IF SOMEONE GETS PAID FOR SELLING A FUND TO AN INVESTOR, no
> matter how or when that check goes to the sales person, it is by law in
> the US a loaded fund and must be referred to as such at all times, by the
> fund, any of its representatives and anyone who sells it, even when they
> are not in a sales situation.
>
> >This sort of thing is really going on, expecially noted for our Canadian
> >banks with their trademarked funds and not with the 3rd party ones.
> >However, there is a peice of news reported on an incident expecially with
> >a trust company here in Canada advertising access to hundreds of funds
> >(not only their own trademarked ones) without a sales commission and has
> >caused confusion and anger among some fund companies, in particular,
> >Dynamic Mutual Fund to leave.
>
> The problem is self-evident. And until Canada resolves this in favor of
> the investor, the problem with the continual misrepresentation of reality
> will continue.
>
> Its bad enough here, where this kind of BS is illegal.
> --
It will only get serious enough here "IF" we have the same amount of
people investing money into mutual funds like the Americans do.
Unfortunately, Canadians are more "talk" than action.
Talk like they love investing, but when it comes to RRSP time, the "C"
word ultimately comes up!
Canadians chickened out of securities and sink themselves into GI"C"s and
"C"SBs.
:(
Brian A. Cowper
>>>>Now, as a little addendum, the fund to which I attribute most of my
>>>>success, TAGrowsafe 21st Century, last three months beat the percentage
>>>>increase of the SP 500 by ~900%, six months ~160%, and 12 months ~55%.
>>>>I'm sorry YTD I don't have, but you've got the picture, I think. Keep in
>>>>mind the YTD is actually 65.81%. Today it'll be close to seventy.
>>>
>>> Yawn!!!
YTD is now seventy. . . keep yawning Muffy.
>>> The fact that a fund may or may not be up any particular figure is
>>> meaningless in this discussion. Anyone can claim anything for their
>>> personal performance or for their supposed clients. You tell us you have
>>> been in the Nasdaq 100 for years, but the fund you attribute the majority
>>> of your success to has only been around for two years, hardly an indication
>>> of your claimed long term success rate.
>
>>Before Transamerica, we were with ING which has a very nice international
>>selection of funds principally managed by America's progenitors. I think
>>I mentioned them in a previous post.
I suppose, Paul, you've never heard of ING; I wouldn't expect you to, it's
a Dutch company.
>>> You diligently tell us you work with the most naive possible investors,
>>> and as proof of the great success they have achieved you once told us
>>> of one who seriously asked you if he had any money left after one of the
>>> recent bear runs, and you proudly told us how you were able to reassure
>>> him. The story, of course, merely points out BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION what a
>>> poor job you do in teaching your clients (IF YOU REALLY HAVE ANY which is
>>> doubtful) anything. But then we don't expect that you could, after all, to
>>> teach someone something you must at least possess a fund of knowledge
>>> greater than the person you are trying to instruct.
>
>>My job is not to teach them anything, Fuckwit Muffy; it is to allay their
>>collective fears in jumping into things that many have only heard or seen
>>on tv or radio. While many of my clients are introductory, to be sure, I
>>take great pride in showing them exceptional profits all the time in stark
>>contrast to many mamsy-pamsy planners who really don't understand the
>>concept our grandfathers told us, that is to make hay while the sun shines.
>>They don't want me to teach them, Paul.
>
> What a riot! Are you trying to be the first on-line Sinefeld? Must have
> driven you to the wall again since there is your juvenile mind exposed
> again.
Paul, do youo really think we will forever have opportunities to make ten,
twenty or thirty percent a month? You have to do it while it is there; if
you don't it takes _years_ to catch up, and if you're diversified all over
the place you'll never catch up to what could've been. Your anachronistic
advise has repetitively cultivated mediocre returns to those who have
listened on this newsgroup.
Fortunately, no one listens to you. But I assure you, there are some who,
once they have filtered out your noise, have listened to every word some of
us have said, and prospered.
>>BTW, I'm sorry to hear _Dentistry For Dummies_ wasn't all it was cracked
>>up to be. Might I suggest you had better luck with _Lobotomy Made Easy_?
>
> I could probably do more with "Dentistry for Dummies" then you have with
> "Investing in a New Paradigm". You really don't have a clue and
> demonstrate constantly with your postings. You don't even understand what
> you write!!
Buy Proctor and Gamble, they make denture adhesive and Tucks.
>>Man, you are _really_ stupid.
>
> What a brilliant statement! Are you going to tell me my mother wears combat
> boots next?
>
>>> It is you who said, it is no one's business what you earn when you sell a
>>> client something. And every code of ethics in the investment game has as
>>> one of its primary stipulations that it is the duty of the seller to fully
>>> disclose.
>
>>No, I have to discuss _how_ I earn. Has nothing to do with
>>quantification. My client has to know how much he _pays_. That's it
>>fuckwit.
>
> Sorry Brian, that is not what you said even after the concept of full
> disclosure was explained. In fact it was only after that explanation that
> you made your now famous "Its none of their damn business!" statement.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Again.
>>> You admit to dealing with the naivest of investors and proudly proclaim
>>> you frequently trade their money by playing "where is the index going"
>>> guessing game. You even love to hurl your juvenile scatology at someone
>>> who advises that someone who has a short term need for some cash they have
>>> accumulated should invest it in short term vehicles and you think it is
>>> the height of stupidity and believe it should be invested at not just risk
>>> but at high risk.
>
>>Sure, we have been principally invested in the Nasdaq 100; how stupid of
>>me. What appears to be obvious to me escapes your limited mentality.
>>Deal with it Paul, that's not my problem, that's yours.
>
> My problem is your lack of reality base. Did you forget your all too
> revealing and instructive statement, that the it has been a bull market
> all your adult (possibly chronologically but not mentally) life?
So what? Sounds like you're agreeing with me. Make hay while the sun is
shining oh Great Muffy.
>>> Both instances fall into the category of the appropriateness of the
>>> investments recommended to a client, an ethical tenet of every investment
>>> code of ethics, and your IGNORANT position violates that tenet.
>
'tenet'. . . you looked this word up and then used it twice in the same
sentence. Good one, Paul.
>>I already explained I wrap the funds; let me explain again. For a
>>virtually insignificant value addition fee, my clients can wade in balls
>>deep into NasfuckingDaq One Hundred, in some of the most volatile of all
>>the performing funds without need to worry about their principal, and
>>after having nearly trebled their investment in just over two years, can
>>lock in this gain, making the new value the principally guaranteed amount.
>
> This is your famous wrapped account that I don't understand? Ha Ha Ha Ha,
> what a joke. Gee, they only have to die to collect that guaranteed value.
Wrong. It shows you how little you know about anything, I suspect.
>>Imagine. . . and then fuck off, Paul. You are useless.
>
> Obviously I have a lot of use, I constantly drive you to the wall to the
> extent that you have no answer but to fall back on your juvenile
> scatology.
Paul, I am playing you like an instrument; they have tried to tell you
over and over again. You don't see _me_ foaming at the mouth. Indeed, my
girlfriend occasionally looks over my shoulder enquiring about my latest
victim. The difference betwee me and an Internet Troll is that I actually
know what I'm talking about, and this newsgroup is about exactly what I do
for a living.
>>> I could of course go on, but why waste time. Virtually everyone of your
>>> posts illustrates the point.
>
>>Yup.
>
> Gee, a accurate observation at last!
>
>><Snip of some of Jimbo's stuff>
>
>>You've gotta laugh, man.
>
>>_Lobotomy Made Easy_
>
> Whoever did yours must have read the book!
For sure.
Greg Hennessy
> Trailer commissions range from .2% to .6% per year of NAV.
You mean that if I buy into a mutual fund you sell, you get .2% or .6%
PER YEAR!?!!!! Sheesh!
I'm glad I live in the US and can buy lots of low expense high
performing no load funds.
Brian A. Cowper
Greg Hennessy (g...@tantalus.clark.net) writes:
> Brian A. Cowper <ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>> Trailer commissions range from .2% to .6% per year of NAV.
>
> You mean that if I buy into a mutual fund you sell, you get .2% or .6%
> PER YEAR!?!!!! Sheesh!
That's right. So _if_ you have a hundred thousand, I make a big 200 to
600 bucks for minding it all year. You should wish for so much.
How much would a fee only planner charge?
> I'm glad I live in the US and can buy lots of low expense high
> performing no load funds.
Yup, I'm certainly not worth the 200 bucks. Based on my allocation, I
have clients who, on a hundred thousand are making fifteen hundred a day
recently, not a bond fund, money market fund in sight. In the US there is
100 billion dollars in MMFs doing nothing, always will be. And trillions
in CDs. Great self-propelled investment planning by the hoards.
Paul Maffia
>In article <73c3hb$nf5$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, pau...@eskimo.com (Paul
>Maffia) wrote:
>> umir...@nospam.uniserve.com (David P) writes:
>>
>>
>> >That's true. For no-load funds, if the clients redeem the account before
>> >the grace period, there will be a penalty imposed to the client and the
>> >fee is the fee used to compensate the brokers in a form of trailer fees in
>> >which the fund company holds it until the clients' accounts have exceeded
>> >the grace period.
>>
>> What do people who have no idea what they are talking about insist on
>> posting total drivel?
>Why do you have to embarrass yourself in front of the public with your
>incomplete sense of investment knowledge below.
Although we have a number of Canadian particpants here, the vast majority
are US. Aside from that, the battle of what to call a loaded fund and when
not to call it was fought a long time ago here and the Investors won. Too
bad that is not the case in Canada.
A load by difintion refers to a commission paid to a salesperson.
>>
>> By definition a no-load fund is a fund that does not pay anyone to sell
>> the fund for them in any shape manner or form; front loaded, a
>> disappearing CDSC with extra expenses tacked on, semi-loaded, etc..
>>
>> NO-LOAD FUNDS HAVE NO GRACE PERIOD, IMPOSE NO PENALTIES IF THE FUND IS
>> REDEEMED BEFORE SOME NON-EXISTING GRACE PERIOD AND THEY DON'T COMPENSATE
>> BROKERS IN THE FORM OF TRAILER FEES.
>Read the Canadian securities regulations act for crying out loud! In it,
>they allow fund companies to levy a "REDEMPTION CHARGE" if units are sold
>within the 90 days of purchase (grace period). Although this is rarely
>done, this is bull because some fund companies do it. The trust company I
>mentioned earlier was one of them.
So don't get stuck, like Brian, on a Canadian definition. That is fine in
Canada, but the concept of a true no load fund is very real, even if t
does not exist as such in Canada. Consequently insisting that the Canadian
defintion is valid everywhere is utter nonsense, it is only valid in
Canada.
I hope that you at least, unlike Brian, can understand the concept, even
if you have no real experience of it.
>A lot of people I've talked to paid this redemption charge when they
>redeem early. Illegal? NOT, because the regulation allows it! Bad PR on
>the funds'
>company part, YES!
Again, a true no-load fund pays no one to sell it and does not charge
redemption fees. By definition, what you describe in the states is by law
a load fund. Simple!!
>Secondly, sales commissions are paid to the financial advisor for the
>advise and service, and not to the fund management company with no load
>funds. The problem is that, this is so vaguely defined. Who is really a
>financial advisor? It is because of that confusion which leads to
>problems with a trust company advertising themselves to sell different
>kinds of funds without the need to pay a sales commission. Unfortunately,
>many of these sales (assumingly brokers with very little knowledge of
>useful advice) who sell securities to clients get paid just like
>knowledgable financial advisors do!
Seems that as much trouble as we have in the states on this issue, we are
far more advnced than Canada.
>That's not fair because brokers do not provide the same level of advice
>and service as a qualified financial advisor.
>This was the explanation given by Dynamic Mutual Funds, and because of
>this practice, they left in disgust!
>The problem is that, every Canadian fund companies know this and care less
>to rectify the situation.
>So no Paul, in theory yes, but in the real world Paul, REAL WORLD not high
>school economics, it doesn't work the way you think it does.
In the real world, where the government autorities have opted to protect
consumers, it damn well works exactly as I described it. The fact that you
have never experienced it is completely immaterial.
Please, don;t be a total dunderhead like Brian and insist that what exists
here is not real because it does not exist there.
>Third, these commissions are paid in a form of trailer fees.
>The story was even published in several financil newspaper. Not true, or
>you live a secluded life?
I read Canadian newspaper about as often as you read US ones.
>> >If clients redeem beyond the grace period, there is no sales commission
>> >fee paid directly to the brokers by them, except maybe a transaction fee
>> >if funds do not belong to the same family. The transaction fee is peanuts
>> >by the way.
>>
>> Again, complete and utter nonsense, even in Canada. No matter who cuts the
>> actual check or when that pays the broker it ALWAYS, EVEN IN CANADA COMES
>> OUT OF THE INVESTOR'S HIDE.
>Don't confuse management fees with sales commission paid to the financial
>advisor with no load funds.
Never said a single word about management fees. I am speaking strictly
about fees collected from investors to pay sales people.
>Again Paul, with no load funds, the sales commission paid out by fund
>companies go directly to the client's financial advisor NOT the fund
>management company.
Sorry, not here and if you are going to get into a discussion where the
main area covered is the US you had better understand Amereican terms. I
welcome learning about thing Canadian, I suggest that you make the effort,
unlike Brian of reciprovcating.
>Client doesn't pay any commission. So if the client doesn't pay it,
>who pays if the client redeems early?
In a no-load fund, NO ONE! there are no redemptiojn fees.
>Most respectable fund companies
>waive this redeem option depending upon ofcourse how much moola you sink
>in. But I know some fund companies DO CHARGE this redemption fee. It's
>even allowed, so why don't they?
Because a lot of threm here, roughly 1/3 of the entire mutual fund
industry in the US is truly NO-LOAD as I have described it.
>However, every mutual fund manager charges a management fee which in most
>cases is paid indirectly by the investor from the fund's assets!
>But isn't every fund either load, no-load, low-load or even pseudo-no load
>have MER right?
NO!!
Not much can be said on that!!
David P
Maffia) wrote:
> umir...@nospam.uniserve.com (David P) writes:
>
> >In article <73c3hb$nf5$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, pau...@eskimo.com (Paul
> >Maffia) wrote:
>
> >> umir...@nospam.uniserve.com (David P) writes:
> >>
> >>
> >> >That's true. For no-load funds, if the clients redeem the account before
> >> >the grace period, there will be a penalty imposed to the client and the
> >> >fee is the fee used to compensate the brokers in a form of trailer fees in
> >> >which the fund company holds it until the clients' accounts have exceeded
> >> >the grace period.
> >>
> >> What do people who have no idea what they are talking about insist on
> >> posting total drivel?
>
> >Why do you have to embarrass yourself in front of the public with your
> >incomplete sense of investment knowledge below.
>
> Although we have a number of Canadian particpants here, the vast majority
> are US. Aside from that, the battle of what to call a loaded fund and when
> not to call it was fought a long time ago here and the Investors won. Too
> bad that is not the case in Canada.
>
How do you know that a vast majority are Americans Paul? Did you do a
scientific survey here for a number of years?
Just because some Americans replied and post messages do not instantly
mean Americans dominate this newsgroup.
Also Paul, do not ever forget that Canadians save far more than Americans do.
And look at the debt to savings ratio and Canadians are miles ahead of
Americans.
So theoretically, there may be more Canadians who browse through this
group, but this is theory. In any case, shouldn't you think that bringing
up Canadian security issues here is fair?
Some Americans who trade Canadians securities might even benefit from the
discussion as well.
> A load by difintion refers to a commission paid to a salesperson.
>
I don't think we have to beat the same old horse again do we?
> So don't get stuck, like Brian, on a Canadian definition. That is fine in
> Canada, but the concept of a true no load fund is very real, even if t
> does not exist as such in Canada. Consequently insisting that the Canadian
> defintion is valid everywhere is utter nonsense, it is only valid in
> Canada.
Paul, No Load Fund companies "PAY" financial advisors the fee for their
clients' referrals to their products as compensation for their work. The
clients pay no fee, though the regulation does say that clients may pay
for early redemption, the 90 days limit is rarely enforced.
Note that, these companies PAY financial advisors, but mention "NOTHING"
about brokers at all.
Technically, if I buy no-load funds from my discount broker by phone, my
broker should not get a trailer fee, because my broker is not a financial
advisor. He or she did not solicit the product to me. So, the broker gets
no fee.
That's a no load fund in action.
But if I buy it through an advisor and the fund has been solicited by that
individual, the advisor gets payment in a form of a trailer fee from the
fund
company. I have no problems with that. BUT, if a broker from a trust
company advise a client to buy a no load fund and gets a trailer fee in a
return for that, then is there a problem?
Clients still do not pay any commissions to buy no-load funds either way.
And no, I do not share Brian's idealism at all. But people tend to think
that I'm Brian, or Brian's relatives or friends. Thought I don't agree
with his comments, he did bring up an interesting point about no load
funds in Canada, and my original post is only directed to clarify the
Canadian situation.
> I hope that you at least, unlike Brian, can understand the concept, even
> if you have no real experience of it.
>
Actually, I do have some experience, not a lot though. As to Brian, I
have no comment, although I'm stunned and puzzled by his many investment
claims.
> >A lot of people I've talked to paid this redemption charge when they
> >redeem early. Illegal? NOT, because the regulation allows it! Bad PR on
> >the funds'
> >company part, YES!
>
> Again, a true no-load fund pays no one to sell it and does not charge
> redemption fees. By definition, what you describe in the states is by law
> a load fund. Simple!!
That's great! I hope we will see the same changes here in Canada.
>
> >Secondly, sales commissions are paid to the financial advisor for the
> >advise and service, and not to the fund management company with no load
> >funds. The problem is that, this is so vaguely defined. Who is really a
> >financial advisor? It is because of that confusion which leads to
> >problems with a trust company advertising themselves to sell different
> >kinds of funds without the need to pay a sales commission. Unfortunately,
> >many of these sales (assumingly brokers with very little knowledge of
> >useful advice) who sell securities to clients get paid just like
> >knowledgable financial advisors do!
>
> Seems that as much trouble as we have in the states on this issue, we are
> far more advnced than Canada.
>
I wouldn't call it advanced. I call it efficient.
Mind you that, Canadians can call themselves far more advanced than
Americans in terms of savings rate.
> Please, don;t be a total dunderhead like Brian and insist that what exists
> here is not real because it does not exist there.
Paul, don't jump the gun here too quickly, name calling me when in fact,
I've mentioned Canadian definition of something. I can't comment for
Brian, but I am aware that some of his comments were too generalized to be
confused into thinking that his way is the highway for all securities
trading.
As I said earlier, you do not seem to be aware of the securities
regulation act pertaining to no load funds in Canada and you started
blasting people (expecially Canadians) that are no such things in a
no-load fund.
What respect do you have to give to Canadians? I would say none at all.
> >Third, these commissions are paid in a form of trailer fees.
> >The story was even published in several financil newspaper. Not true, or
> >you live a secluded life?
>
> I read Canadian newspaper about as often as you read US ones.
>
Then, shouldn't you know the Canadian securities regulation act pertaining
to no-load fund status in Canada?
Funny that since you've often read Canadian papers, the act sometimes get
published with the mutual funds directory and you never saw it? Hmm.
very puzzling.
Greg Hennessy
> That's right. So _if_ you have a hundred thousand, I make a big 200 to
> 600 bucks for minding it all year. You should wish for so much.
Since the mutal fund company does the work of minding it, you should
be happy.
> Yup, I'm certainly not worth the 200 bucks.
You said it, I didn't.
I don't mind people earning an honest commission, I object to being
charged "expenses" that get used to pay "commissions".
prodi...@juno.com
ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
>>It seems trailers in Canada are a lot higher than the 1/4% one-time
>>commission common in the U.S., and Brian's trailer fees must total more
>>than 1/2% a year because he said that anybody who manages $500 million
>>of assets for just a $2.5M a year is an idiot (like a certain money
>>management firm that's beaten the S&P 500 for several years but modestly
>>calls the results a fluke. Actually they'd probably charge not $2.5M
>>but $2.8M on that $500M - gotta add .06% for the mutual fund expenses).
>
>Trailer commissions range from .2% to .6% per year of NAV. I think that was
>500,000 of assets for 2,500 bucks. You got it slightly wrong.
>
>"M" in Latin is a thousand, perhaps that's where you screwed up. To tell
>you the truth, I can't remember the exact nature of the post.
>
You posted on 9/21/98, in response to my question about your fees:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>If a client employs you or your firm to help him invest $100,000 or $1
>>million, what will typically be the total amount he pays all of the
>>parties involved, including MERs, sales commissions, trailers, brokerage
>>commissions, and administrative charges? For example, one financial
>>planner I talked to said he charged either $200/hour or .5% a year for
>>a $500K account, plus any stock brokerage costs (unaffiliated broker)
>>and mutual fund MERs (only true no-load funds were used, mostly Vanguard).
>>Do you think you can give an answer as precise and as honest as that?
>
>Yeah, sure but. . . what he didn't tell you is that he _also_ gets paid
>through the fund company, ditz; so, in effect, he is charging you an
>_extra_ .5%. Now with Vanguard, I presume _indexed_ funds, I don't know
>how they operate, but be assured there is some sort of flow-out to the
>broker. Quite frankly, any _planner_ willing to administer 500m for 2.5m
>is an idiot.
>
So there's no question you thought that their 1/2% annual charge was too
low for you.
And despite claiming that you could have provided a precise answer about
your fees, you never did.
Exactly what is your master's degree in anyway?
prodi...@juno.com
>Trailer commissions range from .2% to .6% per year of NAV.
>
>>PER YEAR!?!!!! Sheesh!
>
>600 bucks for minding it all year. You should wish for so much.
>
>making fifteen hundred a day recently, not a bond fund, money
>market fund in sight.
>
Brian, you claim you're so smart, yet you won't reveal your track record
because it's too unwieldly to calculate them for your over 700 client
accounts. But how much have you personally made on your own passive
investments over the past 10 years, on an annual compounded basis?
Ed
If Brian did poorly, you'd be happy, if he did very well, you wouldn't
believe him.
I don't want to sound like I'm defending him, but I wouldn't give anyone
the details of my performance either. It's nobody's business but mine
and the tax mans.
I'm sure if you were a potential client of Brian's he would provide you
with performance figures for each type of risk profile when you
interviewed him.
Brian A. Cowper
>> That's right. So _if_ you have a hundred thousand, I make a big 200 to
>> 600 bucks for minding it all year. You should wish for so much.
>
> Since the mutal fund company does the work of minding it, you should
> be happy.
Uh Greg, given a simplistic re-balancing of a portfolio on a quarterly
basis, the fact that I rely heavily on sectors, and that I _seem_ to have
adequately anticipated the growth of the Nasdaq 100 even opposed to the
Composite, Japan, etc., don't you think a few hundred dollars is a small
price to pay for not being stuck in a dividend, bond or mm fund the
'normal' twenty percent? Even a mutual fund [in Canada] will charge fees
if a client wants it done routinely by computer always fitting it to their
profile.
>> Yup, I'm certainly not worth the 200 bucks.
>
> You said it, I didn't.
>
> I don't mind people earning an honest commission, I object to being
> charged "expenses" that get used to pay "commissions".
I don't know how you imply they are not honest commissions. I have stated
over and over again, I go way out of my way, well beyond the typical
commissioned investment broker, to make my clients sing. Do yourself a
favour, and don't presume _everyone_ out there has your's or anyone else's
on this group's investment savvy. This is a newsgroup about mutual funds.
Nobody migrates over here unless they have some sort of knowledge.
I have been in the investment business for awhile, Canadians are generally
pretty well tuned in to investment programmes because of the relative ease
with which they can be entered into, especially tax deferring and exempt
programmes, and I have yet to meet _anyone_ who has slightly more than a
very rudimentary knowledge of anything.
One of the most important instruments in Canada is what is called a
'spousal RRSP', and only one household out of a hundred, maybe less has
them, let alone has heard of them. So much for bank tellers selling
financial products. Spousal RRSP are very time-consuming, yup. We have
to fill out four forms per household to make it work.
Greg Hennessy
> I don't know how you imply they are not honest commissions.
Commissions aren't expenses. I simply go by what you say. Sometimes
you say the money you get paid are expenses, sometimes you say the
money is commissions. Coupled with your statements such as "stocks
have no where to go but up", it simply makes me wonder about you.
If you told the same story more than once it would help.
prodi...@juno.com
Ed <fri...@fishinthe.net> wrote:
>>
>>Brian, you claim you're so smart, yet you won't reveal your track record
>>because it's too unwieldly to calculate them for your over 700 client
>>accounts. But how much have you personally made on your own passive
>>investments over the past 10 years, on an annual compounded basis?
>>
>It doesn't really matter does it?
>
>If Brian did poorly, you'd be happy, if he did very well, you wouldn't
>believe him.
>
>I don't want to sound like I'm defending him, but I wouldn't give anyone
>the details of my performance either. It's nobody's business but mine
>and the tax mans.
>
>I'm sure if you were a potential client of Brian's he would provide you
>with performance figures for each type of risk profile when you
>interviewed him.
>
the first person praise him, and I'd much rather that his record be
superb, for the sake of his customers.
I asked for his personal returns only because he won't tell us how
his average client has done, claiming the math is too hard.
No big mouth who's for real ever keeps his proof a secret.
Greg Hennessy
> on a daily basis. So commissions come from the expense charges levied to
> the account.
Yes, you are confirming what I said, Canadian mutal funds take money
from their investors for reason X, and use it for Y. I'm glad I don't
have to put up with that.
Brian A. Cowper
>> I don't know how you imply they are not honest commissions.
>
> Commissions aren't expenses.
Commissions are paid to brokers from the MER which are subtracted from NAV
on a daily basis. So commissions come from the expense charges levied to
the account.
> I simply go by what you say. Sometimes
> you say the money you get paid are expenses, sometimes you say the
> money is commissions.
I think the above clarifies.
> Coupled with your statements such as "stocks
> have no where to go but up", it simply makes me wonder about you.
This was in reference to the risks involved of teenager who wanted to drop
three thousand into the game at the absolute bottom of a depressed market
who had a short time horizon, was looking, within this horizon of a return
of practically nil if he invested in a short-term MMF. If he had actually
done what I suggested, he would've done very nicely. If he didn't and he
went into savings account or mmf, he would've done poorly. If he had gone
into a bond fund like Paul suggested he would've LOST money. . . well,
probably, depends on which one.
> If you told the same story more than once it would help.
I tell the same story, over and over and over again; it is always the
same. In a bull market, put all your eggs into a couple of baskets, don't
diversify, think globally, use commonsense and WATCH THE BASKETS!
Brian A. Cowper
Greg Hennessy (g...@tantalus.clark.net) writes:
>> Commissions are paid to brokers from the MER which are subtracted from NAV
>> on a daily basis. So commissions come from the expense charges levied to
>> the account.
>
> Yes, you are confirming what I said, Canadian mutal funds take money
> from their investors for reason X, and use it for Y. I'm glad I don't
> have to put up with that.
Or, in the case of a CDSCd fund, early withdrawal penalties. You have to
remember that _most_ fund investment money in Canada is in long-term
intended tax deferring instruments in which Canadians receive an immediate
break off taxable income in the neighbourhood of forty percent. This
reduction in taxable income at certain levels can affect other
tiered deductions which provide an overall larger tax break for most
Canadians. Growth within this RRSP is tax sheltered until withdrawal,
usually in retirement or lower earned income at which point it becomes
fully taxable at that years income level.
In the case of a spousal plan, after an hiatus of two years and a day
where there are no additional contributions, the initial contribution of
which was a tax deduction for 'A', can be withdrawn at the taxed rate of
'B'. I don't know if you have any such plans in the US. The point being,
they are long term instruments and the deferred diminishing to nil sales
charges were designed originally to make people keep their retirement
income in these plans. . . for there own benefit rather than for
consumption.
Brian A. Cowper
(prodi...@juno.com) writes:
> In article <365BAD79...@prodigy.net>,
> Ed <fri...@fishinthe.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Brian, you claim you're so smart, yet you won't reveal your track record
>>>because it's too unwieldly to calculate them for your over 700 client
>>>accounts. But how much have you personally made on your own passive
>>>investments over the past 10 years, on an annual compounded basis?
>>>
>>It doesn't really matter does it?
>>
>>If Brian did poorly, you'd be happy, if he did very well, you wouldn't
>>believe him.
>>
>>I don't want to sound like I'm defending him, but I wouldn't give anyone
>>the details of my performance either. It's nobody's business but mine
>>and the tax mans.
>>
>>I'm sure if you were a potential client of Brian's he would provide you
>>with performance figures for each type of risk profile when you
>>interviewed him.
>>
> If Brian would show he was anything as good as he says he is, I'd be
> the first person praise him, and I'd much rather that his record be
> superb, for the sake of his customers.
>
> I asked for his personal returns only because he won't tell us how
> his average client has done, claiming the math is too hard.
>
> No big mouth who's for real ever keeps his proof a secret.
I'm sorry, I really don't know how to help you. And I don't really care.
The simple fact of the matter is I have been extolling the virtues of
buying and selling Nasdaq 100 funds, toggling with SP500 funds, a little
bit of dip trading in Japan, Eurotop 100, Canadian lagging etc. Even if I
bought high and traded low over the last two or three years, this strategy
would've shown exceptional returns.
What is your problem?
If the math is so easy, why don't you take the time and compile an
accurate progression of my manouevres from Dejanews, post them, critique
them, etc. This is comparatively easy. You will see a pattern. It will
be pretty close to optimal timing over the last two and half years when I
started on these newsgroups.
F. Blaine Dickson
> By definition a no-load fund is a fund that does not pay anyone to sell
> the fund for them in any shape manner or form; front loaded, a
> disappearing CDSC with extra expenses tacked on, semi-loaded, etc..
>
> NO-LOAD FUNDS HAVE NO GRACE PERIOD, IMPOSE NO PENALTIES IF THE FUND IS
> REDEEMED BEFORE SOME NON-EXISTING GRACE PERIOD AND THEY DON'T COMPENSATE
> BROKERS IN THE FORM OF TRAILER FEES.
That's wrong.
Canada Trust advertised no load funds when, in fact, the fund companies
were paying Canada Trust trailers. Why do you think Dynamic was so
pissed off and left IFIC? Because Canada Trust was advertising no
commissions while at the same time accepting trailers from fund
companies such as Dynamic. It happens all the time. If CIBC sells
Templeton funds no load, you can damn well be sure trailers are going to
CIBC regardless of what you think.
--
F. Blaine Dickson
Kelowna BC Canada
Brian A. Cowper
It gets back to what I was saying about Paul or Ed a few months ago when
they copied this big list of 'no-load' funds from some website pointing
out the definitions. . . they were virtually all bank mutual funds. . .
and that I should go there to buy funds. . . yuck!
Often I have been critcized for commenting on American concepts, asked to
leave this group because it is an American discussion group. I find this
ironic since I am the one who coninually goes out of my way to use generic
sorts of terms when discussing a point, expecially with regards to how an
investment is tax-treated.
Brian A. Cowper
HW "Skip" Weldon (wheat....@alfalfa.edu) writes:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 20:31:20 -0800, bdic...@wkpowerlink.com (F.
> Blaine Dickson) wrote:
>
>>Paul Maffia <pau...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> By definition a no-load fund is a fund that does not pay anyone to sell
>>> the fund for them in any shape manner or form; front loaded, a
>>> disappearing CDSC with extra expenses tacked on, semi-loaded, etc..
>>>
>>> NO-LOAD FUNDS HAVE NO GRACE PERIOD, IMPOSE NO PENALTIES IF THE FUND IS
>>> REDEEMED BEFORE SOME NON-EXISTING GRACE PERIOD AND THEY DON'T COMPENSATE
>>> BROKERS IN THE FORM OF TRAILER FEES.
>>
>>That's wrong.
>>
>>Canada Trust advertised no load funds when, in fact, the fund companies
>>were paying Canada Trust trailers.
>
>
> Blaine, Maffia is talking about investing in USA. You're talking
> about someplace else. He's correct, and I suspect you are too,
> but it gets confusing even to regular folks.
>
> Since you are in the minority on this board, when you have
> something to say, how about making it clear that you are talking
> about non-USA investing in your header. It would help those who
> are interested in that topic, for that country, and... save a lot
> of angst. (Georgia fans look it up.)
What word in 'Canada Trust' has got your Friday morning mind all in a
kerfuffle, Skip?
And as an addendum to my immediate preceding post, I think everyone should
attempt to speak in generic terms. _The Great Load Debate_ has become
tiresome and irksome, having been shown to be of little consequence in
anyone's long term financial well-being and being replete with
jurisdictional peculiarities.
It is not how little the loads are, but where your baskets are, if there
is anyone watching them, how soon you start filling the baskets and that
one should have a very high risk tolerance at the insipient stages of
one's investment regime _because_ the greater the return at the beginning,
will precipitously affect one's entire life drastically if an intelligent
and routinized investment programme is adopted.
And to touch on another thread which re-appeared with monotonous
regularity, that is why conventional planning wisdom about six month
income emergency funds of cash-like investments is so mindbogglingly
assinnine. It is advocated by narrow-minded, dim-witted non-thinkers
trapped in some sort of dark-ages mentality, who constantly are bandaging
up the bruises on their foreheads having bumped into the _same_ tree on
repeated occasions in some sort of Homer Simpsonian dream state. The
results of such recommendations have done irreparable damage to all those
who have listened, and continue to do so.
How can something so obvious and be supported by past long-term
performance _forever_ be so viciously maligned by the supposed
intellectual titans on this newsgroup?
I wonder.
prodi...@juno.com
ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
Paul Maffia <pau...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>
>>By definition a no-load fund is a fund that does not pay anyone to sell
>>the fund for them in any shape manner or form; front loaded, a
>>disappearing CDSC with extra expenses tacked on, semi-loaded, etc..
>>
> It gets back to what I was saying about Paul or Ed a few months ago when
> they copied this big list of 'no-load' funds from some website pointing
> out the definitions. . . they were virtually all bank mutual funds. . .
> and that I should go there to buy funds. . . yuck!
>
So what if they're bank-run funds? The real reason you don't like
them is because they're your competition, just as Vanguard is for
the loaded fund industry in the U.S.
> Often I have been critcized for commenting on American concepts, asked to
> leave this group because it is an American discussion group. I find this
> ironic since I am the one who coninually goes out of my way to use generic
> sorts of terms when discussing a point, expecially with regards to how an
> investment is tax-treated.
>
> --
> Which is it, is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's?
> -- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Brian A. Cowper
(prodi...@juno.com) writes:
> In article <73m8jn$n...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
> Paul Maffia <pau...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>By definition a no-load fund is a fund that does not pay anyone to sell
>>>the fund for them in any shape manner or form; front loaded, a
>>>disappearing CDSC with extra expenses tacked on, semi-loaded, etc..
>>>
>> It gets back to what I was saying about Paul or Ed a few months ago when
>> they copied this big list of 'no-load' funds from some website pointing
>> out the definitions. . . they were virtually all bank mutual funds. . .
>> and that I should go there to buy funds. . . yuck!
>>
> So what if they're bank-run funds? The real reason you don't like
> them is because they're your competition, just as Vanguard is for
> the loaded fund industry in the U.S.
If you knew anything, prodigy, you'd realize how pathetic bank
administered funds are, how they are not protected against default through
CDIC, have high MERs, are not creditor protected, are invariably not
indexed allowing only twenty percent foreign exposure, are administered by
tellers, are not probate free, cannot designate a beneficiary to avoid
taxes, cannot lock in profits, are not principal protected . . . well,
need I go on and further make you the buffoon you already _pretend_ to be?
You do it so well, Mr. Nader Sux.
You know. . . get real!
Paul Maffia
>In article <73m8jn$n...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
>Paul Maffia <pau...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>By definition a no-load fund is a fund that does not pay anyone to sell
>>>the fund for them in any shape manner or form; front loaded, a
>>>disappearing CDSC with extra expenses tacked on, semi-loaded, etc..
>>>
>> It gets back to what I was saying about Paul or Ed a few months ago when
>> they copied this big list of 'no-load' funds from some website pointing
>> out the definitions. . . they were virtually all bank mutual funds. . .
>> and that I should go there to buy funds. . . yuck!
>>
>So what if they're bank-run funds? The real reason you don't like
>them is because they're your competition, just as Vanguard is for
>the loaded fund industry in the U.S.
The only problem is I have never posted a long list of funds for Brian's
or anyone else's edification. Another lie from that quarter.
And the second lie contained in the same sentence is that he says I listed
bank run mutual funds. If I did name a bank run mutual fund, you can be
assured that it is a true no-load fund. Not one with hidden loads.
I tire of this boob Brian. He is a liar as well as an idiot.
prodi...@juno.com
ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
>
>It gets back to what I was saying about Paul or Ed a few months ago when
>they copied this big list of 'no-load' funds from some website pointing
>out the definitions. . . they were virtually all bank mutual funds. . .
>and that I should go there to buy funds. . . yuck!
>
>>So what if they're bank-run funds? The real reason you don't like
>>them is because they're your competition, just as Vanguard is for
>>the loaded fund industry in the U.S.
>
>administered funds are, how they are not protected against default through
>CDIC, have high MERs, are not creditor protected, are invariably not
>indexed allowing only twenty percent foreign exposure
>
you scoffed that most were run by banks. But now you say bank-run funds tend
to be expensive. And I believe that .66% fund indexed the U.S. market.
>
>Often I have been critcized for commenting on American concepts, asked to
>leave this group because it is an American discussion group.
>
whether you're Canadian or American; you're still a liar and a con man.
F. Blaine Dickson
> On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 20:31:20 -0800, bdic...@wkpowerlink.com (F.
> Blaine Dickson) wrote:
>
> >Paul Maffia <pau...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> By definition a no-load fund is a fund that does not pay anyone to sell
> >> the fund for them in any shape manner or form; front loaded, a
> >> disappearing CDSC with extra expenses tacked on, semi-loaded, etc..
> >>
> >> NO-LOAD FUNDS HAVE NO GRACE PERIOD, IMPOSE NO PENALTIES IF THE FUND IS
> >> REDEEMED BEFORE SOME NON-EXISTING GRACE PERIOD AND THEY DON'T COMPENSATE
> >> BROKERS IN THE FORM OF TRAILER FEES.
> >
> >That's wrong.
> >
> >Canada Trust advertised no load funds when, in fact, the fund companies
> >were paying Canada Trust trailers.
>
> Foregin investing stuff snipped...
>
> Blaine, Maffia is talking about investing in USA. You're talking
> about someplace else. He's correct, and I suspect you are too,
> but it gets confusing even to regular folks.
>
> Since you are in the minority on this board, when you have
> something to say, how about making it clear that you are talking
> about non-USA investing in your header. It would help those who
> are interested in that topic, for that country, and... save a lot
> of angst. (Georgia fans look it up.)
I was just responding to Paul. He made no mention of his post applying
to the US only. And if I remember correctly, he was retorting a post
about the no load issue in Canada. Besides, the group is
misc.invest.mutual-funds, not misc.invest.mutual-funds.usa
If you want to post about the US, perhaps you should put US in your
header, and I'll put Canada in my header to avoid the confusion.
Brian A. Cowper
>> ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
>>Paul Maffia <pau...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>By definition a no-load fund is a fund that does not pay anyone to sell
>>>>the fund for them in any shape manner or form; front loaded, a
>>>>disappearing CDSC with extra expenses tacked on, semi-loaded, etc..
>>>>
>>> they copied this big list of 'no-load' funds from some website pointing
>>> out the definitions. . . they were virtually all bank mutual funds. . .
>>> and that I should go there to buy funds. . . yuck!
>>>
>>So what if they're bank-run funds? The real reason you don't like
>>them is because they're your competition, just as Vanguard is for
>>the loaded fund industry in the U.S.
>
> or anyone else's edification. Another lie from that quarter.
>
> And the second lie contained in the same sentence is that he says I listed
> bank run mutual funds. If I did name a bank run mutual fund, you can be
> assured that it is a true no-load fund. Not one with hidden loads.
You see, Ed or Paul, you have an incomplete knowledge of the mutual fund
industry in Canada. . . you don't understand didley. The irony, of course
is, that you criticize me for my limited knowledge of American funds.
Pot-kettle, I think.
On the other hand, what exactly, besides the great load debate have you
offerred of any consequence to any discussion on this and other groups?
And how has your advice profited anyone?
> I tire of this boob Brian. He is a liar as well as an idiot.
Sure.
Brian A. Cowper
(prodi...@juno.com) writes:
> In article <73na8e$h...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> ca...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Brian A. Cowper) wrote:
>>
>>It gets back to what I was saying about Paul or Ed a few months ago when
>>they copied this big list of 'no-load' funds from some website pointing
>>out the definitions. . . they were virtually all bank mutual funds. . .
>>and that I should go there to buy funds. . . yuck!
>>
>>>So what if they're bank-run funds? The real reason you don't like
>>>them is because they're your competition, just as Vanguard is for
>>>the loaded fund industry in the U.S.
>>
>>administered funds are, how they are not protected against default through
>>CDIC, have high MERs, are not creditor protected, are invariably not
>>indexed allowing only twenty percent foreign exposure
>>
> I listed some cheap Canadian no-loads, one costing just .66% MER a year, and
> you scoffed that most were run by banks. But now you say bank-run funds tend
> to be expensive. And I believe that .66% fund indexed the U.S. market.
What was that .66% MER again. . . a money market fund you say? Oh, that's
a great deal. Why don't you rush out and buy it. You're brilliant. Need
I remind everyone here that you are the Ralph Nader of Usenet and that you
have posted to thousands of groups all picking on your expert opinion
about everything? Truly, you do not have much of a life. Even you're
email address attests to your fanaticism.
>>Often I have been critcized for commenting on American concepts, asked to
>>leave this group because it is an American discussion group.
>>
> Since I've never done that, why are you bringing it up now? I don't care
> whether you're Canadian or American; you're still a liar and a con man.
And you're an idiot, whoever you are.
Go back to your pedophile newsroups trolling for young children.