The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing Books / Rule Breakers, Rule Makers
|Subject: Re: Percentages not points||Date: 5/30/2000 2:19 AM|
|Author: realzen||Number: 232 of 265|
A man appears out of the black hole of cyberspace and walks onto the stage.
“Hello!” He pauses to smile then says, “Some while ago, I began to say: Humans are all fools. To introduce some humility I then started to say: Fools us all and none greater than I. Then with more humility came: Fools us all and none more average than I. Now I'm just saying: Fools us all.”
He shakes his head and chuckles to himself.
“Well enough foolish trivia. Here is the meat of it.”
The man pulls out a small book from his satchel and with a flourish of his hand opens the cover. A stream of words pour out of the book and into the cyberspace.
He winks, clicks his heels twice and vanishes!
Thank you so much for the wonderful welcome and the post recommendation!
I must admit that when I sent that post I had still not read the last couple of pages. So in an effort to help out with the typos:
Problem: Page 291 and Page 292 have the same thing about comparing percentages to percentages becoming points not percentages as pointed out in the earlier post.
Solution: Can't really offer a solution here because it is probably dependent on the industry. And unlike the previous post, any solution I offer will be more subjective as opposed to objective and based on the books model.
Problem: Page 297 Microsoft has more than 5 times Sun's cash. Also Page 297 there is a discrepancy in the flow ratio in the text and in the summary list.
Solution: Nuff said.
Problem: Appendix Ranking Rule Makers. Under Pfizer, you mention that the number used in the appendix are from a different period than that used in the text. From what I could see, actually all the other companies in the appendix are using different periods than the text.
Solution: I suggest opening the whole appendix with a little note at the bottom stating numbers used here are different from those in the text.
Okay get ready for the longer one.
Problem: Page 307 “Half of the mutual-fund tragedy is about subpar performance. The other half of the haunting tale is about overly high annual fees.” I believe this might be a bit misleading. However (here comes the disclaimer bit!) I am fairly new to the US market and some of my assumptions may be wrong. To minimize this problem, I will state my assumptions when I'm finished offering the solution.
Solution: I suggest the following albeit more expanded and explained.
“All of the mutual-fund strategy is about subpar performance. The returns from mutual-funds are sub par compared to the index because of three factors. Firstly, the high annual fees. Secondly, the tendency to trade in and out of stocks in search of superior returns gives rise to greater transactions costs. Thirdly, the trading in and out gives rise to tax implications further increasing costs.
In addition, to these three factors, the manager may or may not be good at choosing the right investments.”
Assumptions: Firstly, the mutual fund performance figures reported already include all three factors' costs. Secondly, there are tax implications.
One final suggestion/request. I am very interested in Soapbox.com. Much like it is the Fool.com's mission to demystify investing, it is my mission to demystify philosophy. I believe I have much more to offer as a philosopher as opposed to my limited experience in investment. So as my final suggestion/request, a section entitled “Fun, Folly & Filosofy!” would be in keeping with the theme of the site.
I hope you enjoyed a plate of confident suggestion with a dose of humility to prevent and preserve against the rot of arrogance.
Thank you once again.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|