[quote=DAtoo]

Think back to July 19, 2007.  The market closed a fraction over 14,000.

I  know damn well that some of you geniuses recommended that your client's stay the course, that the market never goes down in the long run.

How much credibility do you have with that cleint now?

It is a strategic mistake of the first order to ever talk a client out of taking their profits.

[/quote]

Here's a tip for you..."the course" isn't over.

[quote=Bobby Hull][quote=DAtoo]

Think back to July 19, 2007.  The market closed a fraction over 14,000.

I  know damn well that some of you geniuses recommended that your client's stay the course, that the market never goes down in the long run.

How much credibility do you have with that cleint now?

It is a strategic mistake of the first order to ever talk a client out of taking their profits.

[/quote]

Here's a tip for you..."the course" isn't over.

[/quote]

I understand that--but why should somebody pay fees to be told to do nothing.

Staying the course is the most basic of strategies and requires a "financial advisor" as much as a fish needs a bicycle.

[quote=DAtoo][quote=Bobby Hull][quote=DAtoo]

Think back to July 19, 2007.  The market closed a fraction over 14,000.

I  know damn well that some of you geniuses recommended that your client's stay the course, that the market never goes down in the long run.

How much credibility do you have with that cleint now?

It is a strategic mistake of the first order to ever talk a client out of taking their profits.

[/quote]

Here's a tip for you..."the course" isn't over.

[/quote]

I understand that--but why should somebody pay fees to be told to do nothing.

Staying the course is the most basic of strategies and requires a "financial advisor" as much as a fish needs a bicycle.

[/quote]

You're asking the wrong people. Ask the people that pay the fees.

dear dadumbdudetoo

there is no one who knows when the market will go down. there is no fund that only goes up and gets you out before it goes down. staying the course is what gives you the long term returns of 10%. if you can add on dips, you might do better. i highly reccomened that you get yourself of copy of the ICA brochure by the american funds. if you follow that, you will be a successful investor, if not you wont.

also, once you actually invest yourself for 20 years you might understand this. my feeling is that you will not and will be out of the market when there is a run.

DAtoo, regarding credibility; care to take a swing at this quote, provided by our friend william1,
This is copy and pasted from the following link:http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/2007/06/wrap_fees_beware _of_investment.html,
“between December 31, 1899 and December 31, 1999, the Dow rose from 66
to 11,497. That’s a 17,400% gain! Thus, a hundred dollars invested into
a Dow portfolio during the 20th century would have grown to $17,500!
 Yet, that’s an annual compound return over 100 years of only 5.3%, said
Buffet while adding that, if only 1% per year is paid in management
fees, nearly 20% of the profits would go to the money manager.”
 Do you see anything in this quote that may lack credibility?

DO NOT ALLOW THIS THREAD TO TURN INTO ANOTHER 300 POST DEBATE. Ignore the trolls and they will not be able to continue to domininate the forums. DO NOT POST ANY MORE RESPONSES TO THESE IDIOTS.

Aren’t you curious to have an answer to the question? I am (and a lack thereof will constitute an end to this thread).

[quote=YHWY]DAtoo, regarding credibility; care to take a swing at this quote, provided by our friend william1,
This is copy and pasted from the following link:http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/2007/06/wrap_fees_beware _of_investment.html,
"between December 31, 1899 and December 31, 1999, the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497. That's a 17,400% gain! Thus, a hundred dollars invested into a Dow portfolio during the 20th century would have grown to $17,500!
 Yet, that's an annual compound return over 100 years of only 5.3%, said Buffet while adding that, if only 1% per year is paid in management fees, nearly 20% of the profits would go to the money manager."
 Do you see anything in this quote that may lack credibility?
[/quote]

I have a suspicion that it could actually be more than 20% of the profits siphoned off as fees.

For the first 80 years of the time period being discussed the market traded between 63 and slightly more than 1,000.  The incredible growth did not begin until late 1982.

So, paying 1% of assets during those 80 years would not have amounted to all that much in total dollars.

In the years since 1982 the spectacular growth has occured and 1% of year end values during these years has proven to be a significant sum of money--it would surprise me if 1% of the 2006 year end value was not more total dollars than 1% of every year's year end value from 1899 to 1982 added together.

What Mr. Buffet said was that a portfolio that averaged (ie) 5.6% for one hundred years would only net 4.6% over those same 100 years.

I am not enough of a statistician to be able to say if the logic is valid--I suspect not--but I also suspect that the "mistake" is not on the side of those who argue that the effect of siphoning off 1% each year is not as much as 20%.

I think it well may be more because of the HUGE sums siphoned off since 1982 compared to the relatively small sums siphoned off in the first 80 years.

DAtoo,
 Tisk, tisk, tisk, I expected so much more from one of your intellectual stature. Try again. There is a FACTUAL error in the quote. The fact that you (and william1 and GGGR) completely missed it doesn’t bode well for your reputation(s) here.
 Here it is again,
“between December 31, 1899 and December 31, 1999, the Dow rose from 66
to 11,497. That’s a 17,400% gain! Thus, a hundred dollars invested into
a Dow portfolio during the 20th century would have grown to $17,500!
 Yet, that’s an annual compound return over 100 years of only 5.3%, said
Buffet while adding that, if only 1% per year is paid in management
fees, nearly 20% of the profits would go to the money manager.”

[quote=YHWY]DAtoo,
 Tisk, tisk, tisk, I expected so much more from one of your intellectual stature. Try again. There is a FACTUAL error in the quote. The fact that you (and william1 and GGGR) completely missed it doesn't bode well for your reputation(s) here.
 Here it is again,
"between December 31, 1899 and December 31, 1999, the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497. That's a 17,400% gain! Thus, a hundred dollars invested into a Dow portfolio during the 20th century would have grown to $17,500!
 Yet, that's an annual compound return over 100 years of only 5.3%, said Buffet while adding that, if only 1% per year is paid in management fees, nearly 20% of the profits would go to the money manager."

[/quote]

The statements are that 66 to 11497 is 17,400%.  If you use a calculator as follows you will come up with a damn close answer

11497 minus 66 divided by 66 173.197 which is 17,319.7 percent.  No quarrel with his first statment.

$100 invested would have grown to 17,319.70--no quarrel with his second statment.

If you use a simple spreadsheet to compound at 5.3% for 100 years it will total 17,492--close enough to determine that the average annual increase would be 5.3%.

I set up a separate spreadsheet using an annual beginning balance of 99% of the previous year's ending balance--to reflect 1% being stolen by a "Financial Advisor."  Everything else was the same.

Instead of coming up with a 100 year total value of $17,492 the total is only $6,467.  In other words having a "financial advisor" cut the total return by more than 60%.

In other words, the investor had paid more for the "Financial Advisor" than they kept after 100 years.

And to think there are those who believe this is a scam being run on the public.

Think back to July 19, 2007.  The market closed a fraction over 14,000.

I  know damn well that some of you geniuses recommended that your client's stay the course, that the market never goes down in the long run.

How much credibility do you have with that cleint now?

It is a strategic mistake of the first order to ever talk a client out of taking their profits.

ah, we get paid fees so our clients don't do exactly what you think is a good strategy.  don't confuse short term profits for long term planning.

"ah, we get paid fees so our clients don't do exactly what you think is a good strategy."

And it seems you do a vry poor job of it.

"  don't confuse short term profits for long term planning."

Don't confuse long term planning with ignoring the NEED to take risk.

Don't confuse long term planning with ignoring the NEED to take risk.

Don't confuse an incredible amount of typing on a topic with the typist having an ounce of intelligence or any knowledge on the subject.  Envision a group of monkeys madly typing away with both fingers and toes.

DONT FEED THEM. THEY WILL GO AWAY. YOU ARE KEEPING THE TOPIC ALIVE. IT IS A WASTE OF TIME.

I’m not going away until I’m good and ready, no promises or plans to do that just yet, either.  You going anywhere, Wilma?  How about you, DaII?  I don’t think sooooo.