Your one in 11,585 to me.

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by Brandonf, Nov 24, 2008.

  1. Brandonf

    Brandonf ET Sponsor

  2. bidask


    it's all about doing well together and not doing well together. that's why we are where we are now.
  3. Not all mutual funds reported their performance to the guys who wrote that article. I'm guessing bear funds (Direxion?) are up this year.
  4. Corey


    It isn't hard to see why. 100% invested mandates and limiting funds to specific styles (asset, country, size, sector, etc) limit performance even further.

    Imagine you run a mutual fund, required to be 100% invested in S&P 500 companies. You are also required to hold at least 30 companies in the portfolio at any given time.

    Sorry -- but not too many people would still be positive for the year with those sorts of requirements.

    It isn't always the managers -- it is the industry. Who better to know when to be in cash that a manager who specializes in that style? And yet we, as investors, require them to be 100% invested, because otherwise we don't want to pay management fees.

    But I know a lot of people who would have preferred to pay the 1% management fee and only be down 1% for the year, rather than pay the 1% management fee and be down 40% for the year...

    More importantly, however: you're, not your. The former is a contraction between 'you' and 'are'. The latter is a possessive form.
  5. and look at the 1 that's flat
    280k of aum
  6. S2007S


    Do bear funds not count,



    HEre are a few funds that have done extremely well.

  7. mind