The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing
|Subject: Conflicting Info||Date: 10/12/1998 2:37 PM|
|Author: WSF||Number: 5991 of 76089|
Just had a meeting with my full service broker. I mentioned that I was curious about the fact my AIM funds were under performing the S&P
500 and, say, the Vanguard Index 500. His comments to this fact were as follows:
1) You buy funds based on your goals (good point)
2) Do you want your retirement $ dependent upon the S&P 500, which can be risky or under performing based on the timing?
3) Yes, a large number of mutuals have been outperformed by the index funds in the last few years, but he thinks this will change and you'll
see mutual funds kick back ahead! "He doesn't buy yesterday's winners today"
4) He firmly stated that since 1950 mutual funds have historically outperformed the S&P and Dow.
5) Buying funds is an art, not a science!
6) Said paying expense ratio fees was a good thing, as it takes money to make money. (he didn't comment on 12b-1 fees)
7) Said the S&P was not a particularly good benchmark. The more relevant benchmark is one based on your goals and objectives. Rather
banks savings rates were better.
8) Basically slammed "getting on the internet for about 30 minutes and picking out some good funds" (i.e. VFINX).
I'm confused. I want to move my AIM funds into an index fund as safe harbor until I've built up enough capital/knowledge to buy into the FF
or other program. Therefore, my thinking is that funds are not part of the long-term picture anyway, but he made some emphatic and
contrary points to the general consensus at TMF re mutual funds.
I'll not include any info re his general demeanor and attitude which was predictable. I'll let you imagine that, but he'll never work for me
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|