Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 11
[Whoops -- I clicked "submit" prematurely on that last post. Perhaps it will be yanked, to prevent confusion or redundancy. Here's what I posted, along with the conclusion of my post.]

Trick --

<<I agree with this. I heard the "full service broker" arguments from the beginning. But I, along with so many others here, heard a general mistrust of most mutual funds, as well as the majority of paid financial advice out there. I am not alone in picking up on a general mistrust of financial advisors in general. >>

No, you're not. I can see where you get that, and even that someone might have interpreted us as implying that any professional advice is bad. Still, I don't think that's strictly what we said or meant. With mutual funds, sure -- we pointed out that they shouldn't be blindly trusted. That there are many problems with many of them that the average person isn't aware of: overdiversification, size, underperformance, churning, excessive fees, etc. I think that in many cases we were simply playing the role of the traditional Fool -- telling the truth, and exposing some things worth exposing.

<< Again, it's possible I misunderstood your true intention, but I must add, I have above average comprehension skills. I suggest it was your general tone that caused any trouble, and it's biting you now that you are paddling in a boat with so many others.>>

Of course you have above average comprehension skills. Perhaps our tone hasn't always been pitch-perfect. I myself wish we hadn't sometimes seemed like Wise vs. Fool was a black and while distinction, sometimes seeming to portray ALL of the Wise as bad. I know we haven't done all things perfectly.

You said in another post:

<<In my opinion, you are once again retreating into your oft-used "Trust us, we are the good guys" routine. As I said, I know you are the good guys. But I also think there are good guys around who don't like the way they look in Jester Caps. >>

I really don't see this. When Bogey and I responded to you, you thought we were saying we we're the good guys, trust us?? I thought we were just responding to your post, presenting our perspective, refuting as best as we could some of your statements that struck as wrong or problematic.

Finally, in yet another post, you said:

<<For those interested, here is a long meaty post as balanced as anything I've seen here in a long while. The fact that is written by one of the "insiders" in the financial advisor field is interesting, and that this writer is an occasional vocal critic of some of the writing at TMF makes it more so. I think it is balanced and informative. Enjoy.>>

That's fine, and the post certainly has its merits. But FWIW, I think this writer is more than an "occasional critic of some of the writing at TMF." For almost as long as I can remember, he's been absolutely disgusted with us. And even downright mean-spirited, too:

I know that this playful derision delights his friends, but it hasn't delighted me, and I hope you'll forgive me if I'm not eager to read his words.


Print the post  


Community Town Hall
Banter, potshots, and all the stuff we said you can't post on ITF. Why not try it?
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.