Brewer, I'm sure you saw this.........

FinanceDude · 12-12-2006, 02:28 PM

http://news.morningstar.com/news/Vie...&pgid=wwhome1d

brewer12345 · 12-12-2006, 02:31 PM

It will only hurt the small fry funds and investors. Ho-hum...

FinanceDude · 12-12-2006, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345

It will only hurt the small fry funds and investors. Ho-hum...

Probably..........but SEC attention is never a good thing...........

brewer12345 · 12-12-2006, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

Probably..........but SEC attention is never a good thing...........

FWIW, I think appropriate investor protection has been lagging at the SEC for some time, WRT to hedge funds and lots of other things. Hedge funds aren't regulated and they SHOULD be off-limits to the moderately wealthy.

boutros · 12-12-2006, 04:01 PM

I agree that hedge funds and the like should be more restricted but this could effect other 144a unregistered securities. It seems like 1/5 of bonds we buy for clients are unregistered. As they are unregistered they are less expensive to issue, they require a little more due dilligence, but pay a proportionally better yield. While most of our clients easily pass the 1mm mark fewer pass 3mm. It would be nice if they changed the rule to allow for qualification by assets under management by an investment advisor since we are doing due dilligence in their stead.

I guess people around here would think that was unfair.

bosco · 12-13-2006, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boutros

I agree that hedge funds and the like should be more restricted but this could effect other 144a unregistered securities. It seems like 1/5 of bonds we buy for clients are unregistered. As they are unregistered they are less expensive to issue, they require a little more due dilligence, but pay a proportionally better yield. While most of our clients easily pass the 1mm mark fewer pass 3mm. It would be nice if they changed the rule to allow for qualification by assets under management by an investment advisor since we are doing due dilligence in their stead.

I guess people around here would think that was unfair.

naw, what could possibly be unfair about allowing clients qualify with less money so long as they agree to give some of their less money to an advisor?

brewer12345 · 12-13-2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bosco

naw, what could possibly be unfair about allowing clients qualify with less money so long as they agree to give some of their less money to an advisor?

Heheh, DFA all over again.

12-12-2006, 02:28 PM	#1
FinanceDude Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ... Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 7,430	Brewer, I'm sure you saw this......... http://news.morningstar.com/news/Vie...&pgid=wwhome1d __________________ Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:) President Obama, please know that I will continue to cling to my guns and religion........:)

12-12-2006, 02:31 PM	#2
brewer12345 Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ... Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 9,249	Re: Brewer, I'm sure you saw this......... It will only hurt the small fry funds and investors. Ho-hum... __________________ “When you realize that you are one of the rare few who observe moral principles in their relationships with others, there is a temptation to sink into amorality, not out of conviction or pleasure but simply to avoid further pain, because there is no greater suffering than being an angel in hell, whereas a devil feels at home wherever he goes.” – Martin Page, How I Became Stupid

12-12-2006, 04:01 PM	#5
boutros Recycles dryer sheets Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 108	Re: Brewer, I'm sure you saw this......... I agree that hedge funds and the like should be more restricted but this could effect other 144a unregistered securities. It seems like 1/5 of bonds we buy for clients are unregistered. As they are unregistered they are less expensive to issue, they require a little more due dilligence, but pay a proportionally better yield. While most of our clients easily pass the 1mm mark fewer pass 3mm. It would be nice if they changed the rule to allow for qualification by assets under management by an investment advisor since we are doing due dilligence in their stead. I guess people around here would think that was unfair.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Brewer et al- Interest Rate Data?	haha	FIRE and Money	26	05-21-2006 09:51 AM
Brewer et al. ?Index for Junk Yields?	haha	FIRE and Money	7	08-31-2005 11:24 PM
Brewer: MLP's questions etc	lswswein	FIRE and Money	6	03-25-2005 12:52 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)