The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing
|Subject: Re: Hi gang... wow!!!||Date: 5/30/2013 12:48 AM|
|Author: sykesix||Number: 72321 of 73923|
Just as before, I'll say again;
With a zero annual floor, at a 20 year average all-in expense ratio under 1%, and a 90% leveragability at net zero cost (and actually often a positive credit arbitrage,)... nobody's brought forth anything that can outperform.
Yep, and if you ask who is the best American president with Warren G. Harding's height, weight, and anniversary there is only one clear winner.
The most important question to most people i.e. "how well do these things perform?" isn't in your list of important criteria. Shouldn't that be the first thing you look at? Is making money really less important that 90% leveragability? It is like buying a car based on the brand of tires or selecting a hotel based on the hallway carpet color. Or choosing a job because the employee lunchroom has free drink refills and not asking about the salary. Or getting a loan because you like the banker's shoes and not asking about the interest rate.
"Hey, I didn't make any money, but I'm thrilled I kept my 20 year average all-in expense ratio under 1%!"
It doesn't always outperform accounts with deper loss tolerances... but if you want more risk in order to chase more profits, the liquidity lets you do it on a smart selection basis, rather than being forced to "weather it out" during drawdowns.
And who specifically has successfully used this strategy and is dollars ahead? I'm willing to bet the answer is nobody. The answer could be "nobody yet," but you haven't even shown how your strategy might work. Extraordinary claims...
|Copyright 1996-2013 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|