Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-21-2021, 04:14 PM   #61
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunningBum View Post
I wonder if at the start of 2018 or 2020, before those killer years, if CPODX was a screaming BUY.

Peter Lynch at Magellan is the best example of an expert mutual fund manager who consistently beat the market. He managed Magellan from 1977-90, though the fund didn't open to the public until 1981. I can't easily find his yearly records, but this Wiki page starts at 1984:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidelity_Magellan_Fund
I don't know when he stepped down in 1990 so I won't count that loss against him, but he only beat the market 4 out of 6 years 1994-1999.

https://www.globalbrandsmatter.com/b...magellan-was-1 has this chart:




Clearly the fund did much better than the S&P overall, but there were some significant drops, worse than the S&P, in 1981, 1984, 1987 and 1989. It would appear he took risks. Many paid off, but some did not.

Certainly no one was going to jump in the fund in 1977 (even if they could) and expect such superior performance. They would see after a few years that it did well. So let's see what happens if you bought the fund after a great run, compared to the S&P 500. I'll guess that big drop in 1981 had something to do with opening the fund to the public, so I won't start just before that. But how about early 1983, after a great run in 1982:

You could have bought the fund for ~$400, and at the end of the chart it's at $604.66. About 50% higher. Or you could have bought an S&P 500 index at around $75? Hard to tell, but definitely under $100. And at the end of the chart it's at $233.79. More than doubled, probably even tripled. Hmmm. It looks like a fast start while the fund was private juiced his overall return, but it's not that great once the public got could get in. Really good returns, because the market did well in the 80s, but he wasn't actually beating the market after establishing his track record. Am I reading that chart wrong?
looks like the chart was normalized for %. They both start at 0% so it looks like he almost tripled the s&p during that period.
finnski1 is online now  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 10-21-2021, 04:28 PM   #62
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnski1 View Post
looks like the chart was normalized for %. They both start at 0% so it looks like he almost tripled the s&p during that period.
Did you read my post?
RunningBum is offline  
Old 10-21-2021, 05:53 PM   #63
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,471
Though crowd. Just a little bit of hyperbole from the OP and all the engineers and accountants on the board can't wait to introduce a little bit of truth into the hyperbole. Give a new poster a chance! how are we going to grow the ranks of FIRE folks at the board if we pounce on hyperbole from new members? ( just having fun with this thread. Moderators please delete this post if not appropriate).
ejman is offline  
Old 10-21-2021, 06:23 PM   #64
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 25,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolau View Post
Did I miss something or didn't OP name the fund in post 27? Maybe time to take a look and not dump on OP (at least until evaluating the fund for yourself.)

I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on the info found in the post, but it seems like the fund has done well - for its short history. I'm not buying it as I have my AA set up the way I want it.

Good luck to OP - whatever you decide. Maybe check back here if we haven't driven you off!
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff View Post
+1 I was about to post something about how much fun it is to watch a new troll pester everybody and then Koolau pointed out how easy it is to skip by key posts when you are skimming So, CPODX it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecondCor521 View Post
I've been reading this thread regularly, and I usually read all posts carefully. I'm fairly confident post #27 didn't have the name of the fund in it when the subsequent posts pointing out that it hadn't been named yet were written.

In other words, timeline is something like:

OP writes post #27 and it doesn't have the name of the fund in it.
Several other posters post #28 and following pointing out that the fund hasn't been named
OP edits post #27 to list the name of the fund.

It's either that, we're all careless thread readers (including me, and I'm usually not careless), or there was a glitch in the matrix. My vote is on an OP edit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by REWahoo View Post
He did name it. See post #26.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecondCor521 View Post
This thread is changing underneath us. See my commentary in (currently) post #52:

https://www.early-retirement.org/for...ml#post2678161

Where the post you're referencing was post #27 then. Since it's #26 now, my guess is that a post above it got deleted. Probably a post by the OP, but I'm not keeping track close enough, and honestly don't really care.

I also think it was an edit. I wasn't following super closely, but my big question while reading was "Why not name the fund, someone will do an analysis?" So if OP named it, I would not have been thinking that, and when I saw others mention post #27/26, I was confused.

I think this forum software used to show last edit. Some other forums I'm on do. On this one, it used to ask for a reason (optional, but sometimes handy to just say "typo". I haven't seen that in years.

-ERD50
ERD50 is offline  
Old 10-21-2021, 06:26 PM   #65
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunningBum View Post
Did you read my post?
Ha. Apparently I didn't read it too well the first time. Got it now.
finnski1 is online now  
Old 10-21-2021, 06:26 PM   #66
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 25,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejman View Post
Though crowd. ...
I don't consider asking for evidence to be a sign of a "tough crowd". Heck, we're all looking for something to boost our risk-adjusted ROI, so we're just very curious.

-ERD50
ERD50 is offline  
Old 10-21-2021, 07:52 PM   #67
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 33,418
I did not see the MF name posted earlier. The OP edited to add it later. Anyway, I look at CPODX out of curiosity. Here's what I saw.

From the inception in 1998 to 2000, the fund went up big time. $10K invested on 1/1/1998 became $40,021 on 2/29/2000, while the S&P got to $14,586. I remember that period very well, as it marked the peak of the dot-com era.

But, but, but, after that, CPODX crashed big time, along with the NASDAQ when the dot-coms and the tech stocks imploded. In fact, $10K invested on 1/2000 became $2102 on 3/2003, while $10K with the S&P bottomed out at $5727 on Oct 2002. I remember Oct 2002 very well, as I myself was down to 56c on the dollar.

From that nadir, CPODX tends to beat the S&P slightly each year. It also went down more than the S&P in a bad year. But because it crashed so much harder after the dot-com bust, it took several years to recover to the same level as the S&P. In fact, $10K invested in CPODX and the S&P in Jan 1998 became $11K in Jan 2009 for both investments. The early gain of CPODX was wiped out and it took several years to catch up back to the S&P.

The fund really outperformed since March 2020, in fact doubled in 2020!

Where does it go from here? Beats me. I looked at the fund holdings, and these are the stocks that I have never followed, such as Square Inc, Uber, Twitter, Shopify, Zoom, Snap, Spotify, Twilio, Snowflake, etc...

You could have bought an ARK ETF to get more than 2x growth in 2020 the same way. The holdings are also companies that I don't follow, in fact some I have not heard of.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky (1879-1940)

"Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities Can Make You Commit Atrocities" - Voltaire (1694-1778)
NW-Bound is offline  
Old 10-22-2021, 07:16 AM   #68
Confused about dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Foot Loose and Fancy Free
Posts: 9
So, my example Growth Mutual Fund did not have a perfect record. But my question still stands and as yet has not been answered fully. So I will ask the question again:

Most Mutual Funds don't beat the S&P 500 over a long period of time but if you do your research there are a handful of funds that over a long period of time beat a total stock market funds and its peers. I believe some of this success is dumb luck or risk-taking but much of the success is just due to a superstar manager and his/her team that just know how to pick winning stocks and know when to buy and sell. Do you agree and why?

Other example Growth Mutual Funds that over the last 20 years have done very well in relation to its peers are: FOCPX and FBGRX. (Two Fidelity Investments standout funds.)
Digital Nomad is offline  
Old 10-22-2021, 07:36 AM   #69
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,382
You got plenty of answers. The answer is no. I guess you don't think you are getting a full answer until someone agrees with you? If you want to go with your assumption, by all means go ahead. You don't need our approval.
RunningBum is offline  
Old 10-22-2021, 07:57 AM   #70
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 25,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Nomad View Post
So, my example Growth Mutual Fund did not have a perfect record. But my question still stands and as yet has not been answered fully. So I will ask the question again:

Most Mutual Funds don't beat the S&P 500 over a long period of time but if you do your research there are a handful of funds that over a long period of time beat a total stock market funds and its peers. I believe some of this success is dumb luck or risk-taking but much of the success is just due to a superstar manager and his/her team that just know how to pick winning stocks and know when to buy and sell. Do you agree and why?

Other example Growth Mutual Funds that over the last 20 years have done very well in relation to its peers are: FOCPX and FBGRX. (Two Fidelity Investments standout funds.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunningBum View Post
You got plenty of answers. The answer is no. I guess you don't think you are getting a full answer until someone agrees with you? If you want to go with your assumption, by all means go ahead. You don't need our approval.
The trouble is, how could anyone ever know if it was skill or luck?

That's 2 out of thousands of funds. Surely, we should expect at least a couple to outperform out of all those? Could be the monkeys on typewriters effect, could be skill.

And if it is skill, how can we have any assurance that skill will continue going forward? That skill may have been a match for the times, and maybe not a match for the future times. Can future management have the same skills? It's really a hard thing to nail down.

So unless I see something really convincing (and unfortunately, that sort of advantage would probably get arbitraged away anyhow), I'll stick with the passive broad indexes. At least with those, I have a pretty good assurance that they will continue to track the index, for better or for worse.

-ERD50
ERD50 is offline  
Old 10-22-2021, 08:04 AM   #71
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
The trouble is, how could anyone ever know if it was skill or luck?

That's 2 out of thousands of funds. Surely, we should expect at least a couple to outperform out of all those? Could be the monkeys on typewriters effect, could be skill.

And if it is skill, how can we have any assurance that skill will continue going forward? That skill may have been a match for the times, and maybe not a match for the future times. Can future management have the same skills? It's really a hard thing to nail down.

So unless I see something really convincing (and unfortunately, that sort of advantage would probably get arbitraged away anyhow), I'll stick with the passive broad indexes. At least with those, I have a pretty good assurance that they will continue to track the index, for better or for worse.

-ERD50
Exactly.

I remember when Bill Miller famously beat the s&p index for something like 15 years. However he subsequently lagged it significantly thereafter especially during and after the great recession since he was heavily into financials.
finnski1 is online now  
Old 10-22-2021, 08:35 AM   #72
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Sojourner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Nomad View Post
So, my example Growth Mutual Fund did not have a perfect record.
Yes, OK... but why did you start this thread by posting blatantly incorrect info about your fund? As has been pointed out in many recent posts, your fund was obviously not better than its peers "year after year after year" as you claimed, nor did it outperform its peers "90% of the time, year after year." I just find it very confusing how you could have been this wrong about your fund when the actual data regarding its performance is so freely available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Nomad View Post
Most Mutual Funds don't beat the S&P 500 over a long period of time but if you do your research there are a handful of funds that over a long period of time beat a total stock market funds and its peers.
OK, now you're referring to "total stock market funds" as the benchmark against which you want to make comparisons. Obviously there will be some funds (both passive/indexed and actively managed) that beat "total stock market funds" over arbitrarily chosen time periods. None of those funds will, however, outperform their peers consistently over long time periods. And if, by some odd quirk or happenstance, a tiny number of those funds did happen to outperform their peers consistently, over many years, you would have absolutely no way to predict that in advance other than by lucky guessing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Nomad View Post
I believe some of this success is dumb luck or risk-taking but much of the success is just due to a superstar manager and his/her team that just know how to pick winning stocks and know when to buy and sell. Do you agree and why?
No. There has never been, to my knowledge, any "superstar manager" whose fund consistently outperformed its peers over long time periods (say, 20+ years). Please correct me if I'm wrong, and then tell me how you would've known to invest in this fund at the beginning of its great outperformance run.
Sojourner is offline  
Old 10-22-2021, 08:43 AM   #73
Moderator
Aerides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Nomad View Post
So I will ask the question again:

I believe some of this success is dumb luck or risk-taking but much of the success is just due to a superstar manager and his/her team that just know how to pick winning stocks and know when to buy and sell. Do you agree and why?
dumb luck, risk and picking a window = yes
superstar manager/team = no

Some people have winning streaks. But time and again the market and experts have been surprised by ups and downs. The idea that there are a handful of stars with actual crystal-ball foresight going at it for years, seems...at best, highly unlikely.

I have a few hand picked stocks I tinker with. I've been extraordinarily lucky with these picks (FB, SQ, etc.), and my little <1% of assets account outperforms my VTSAX et al. But I'm not a superstar picker, I just got lucky on this little pot.
Aerides is offline  
Old 10-22-2021, 08:51 AM   #74
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
easysurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,886
Indexing vs Mr. Goxx the hampster.

I'm still choosing good, old, boring Indexing.
__________________
Have you ever seen a headstone with these words
"If only I had spent more time at work" ... from "Busy Man" sung by Billy Ray Cyrus
easysurfer is online now  
Old 10-22-2021, 09:19 AM   #75
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Qs Laptop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Nomad View Post
So, my example Growth Mutual Fund did not have a perfect record. But my question still stands and as yet has not been answered fully. So I will ask the question again:

Most Mutual Funds don't beat the S&P 500 over a long period of time but if you do your research there are a handful of funds that over a long period of time beat a total stock market funds and its peers. I believe some of this success is dumb luck or risk-taking but much of the success is just due to a superstar manager and his/her team that just know how to pick winning stocks and know when to buy and sell. Do you agree and why?

Other example Growth Mutual Funds that over the last 20 years have done very well in relation to its peers are: FOCPX and FBGRX. (Two Fidelity Investments standout funds.)
Yes, I agree there are some mutual fund managers that are successful because they know what they are doing. I think this is true because:

1. They clearly state their objectives and methodology for the investments they make for the fund.

2. They make stock picks consistent with their objectives.

3. They have a track record of beating the indexes over 3, 5, 10, 15, or 20 years. (This fact alone should rule out luck as being how they do it.)

4. There aren't that many of them.

Just as there are superstars in sports there are superstar investors. Not very many people can dunk a basketball but some can. Not very many people can hit 40 HRs a year, but some can. Same thing with professional investors.

(I see you are new here to ER. I would suggest you place comments about specific investing ideas in the Active Investing and Market Strategies forum, a safe space created where people that aspire for the greatness of the humdrum returns of the index cannot attack you.)
__________________
"If James Bond was an Amish spy, he would drink buttermilk. Shaken, not churned."
Qs Laptop is offline  
Old 10-22-2021, 09:41 AM   #76
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Sojourner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qs Laptop View Post
Just as there are superstars in sports there are superstar investors. Not very many people can dunk a basketball but some can. Not very many people can hit 40 HRs a year, but some can. Same thing with professional investors.
While it's true that very few people (even professional baseball players!) can hit 40 HRs a year, it's also true that essentially none of them can hit 40 HRs a year, consistently, year after year. Same is true with professional investors. I am not aware of any who have consistently outperformed (say, by being in the top quartile vs. their peers 80% of the time) over a period of 20+ years.

I'm pretty sure this is because, regardless of how good one's instincts, intuitions, knowledge, and aptitude may be when it comes to investing, there is simply no way to consistently predict the behavior of a system as massively complex as the stock market. It's fundamentally a "chaotic" system (as in the physics term "chaos") and thus cannot be accurately modeled, even by a very capable, very intelligent, very intuitive human brain.
Sojourner is offline  
Old 10-22-2021, 09:49 AM   #77
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
easysurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourner View Post
While it's true that very few people (even professional baseball players!) can hit 40 HRs a year, it's also true that essentially none of them can hit 40 HRs a year, consistently, year after year. Same is true with professional investors. I am not aware of any who have consistently outperformed (say, by being in the top quartile vs. their peers 80% of the time) over a period of 20+ years.

I'm pretty sure this is because, regardless of how good one's instincts, intuitions, knowledge, and aptitude may be when it comes to investing, there is simply no way to consistently predict the behavior of a system as massively complex as the stock market. It's fundamentally a "chaotic" system (as in the physics term "chaos") and thus cannot be accurately modeled, even by a very capable, very intelligent, very intuitive human brain.
To add to the analogy, professional baseball players don't blossom til later in their careers. So, even harder to spot. Also, there is the possibility of injury to shorten a career.

As for a fund manager, what happens if the manager decides to call it quits? Then what? Much easier IMO to just go for an index and pop some popcorn .
__________________
Have you ever seen a headstone with these words
"If only I had spent more time at work" ... from "Busy Man" sung by Billy Ray Cyrus
easysurfer is online now  
Old 10-22-2021, 09:53 AM   #78
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
OldShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 8,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Nomad View Post
... I believe some of this success is dumb luck or risk-taking but much of the success is just due to a superstar manager and his/her team that just know how to pick winning stocks and know when to buy and sell. Do you agree and why? ...
@Digital Nomad, one of the nice things about living in the US is that we are free to believe whatever we want. Belief in a flat earth has had long-term popularity; ivermectin is a more recent fad. Personally, I believe that I'll never develop a taste for Brussels sprouts.

In the context of investing my training as a scientist and engineer informs my conclusions and actions.

First, I will say that your belief in superior managers is entirely understandable. The investment industry pushes this myth because its falsification is an existential threat to all those Porsches in all those mini-mansion garages. They need your unquestioning loyalty to the myth and they spend a lot of money to maintain it.

Second, I will say that my research over many years says that you are completely wrong. I suggest that you abandon this thread now and go to spend a few months educating yourself. Here are some suggestions, in no particular order:

"A Random Walk Down Wall Street" by Burton Malkiel https://www.amazon.com/Random-Walk-D.../dp/0393330338 This is the grandaddy of them all.

"Winning the Loser's Game" by Charles Ellis https://www.amazon.com/Winning-Loser.../dp/1264258461 (latest edition, May 2021) Ellis does an excellent job of explaining his theory on why the market is random.

"Fooled by Randomness" by Nassim Taleb: https://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Random.../dp/0812975219 The title tells all.

"Unconventional Success" by David Swensen https://www.amazon.com/Unconventiona.../dp/0743228383 A little older title but still well worth studying.

Fifty years ago (1967), Michael Jensen reported on his study of 115 mutual funds, thus: : https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....ract_id=244153 "The evidence on mutual fund performance (aka professional speculators) indicates not only that these 115 mutual funds were on average not able to predict security prices well enough to outperform a buy-the-market-and-hold policy, but also that there is very little evidence that any individual fund was able to do significantly better than that which we expected from mere random chance." (Later in his career, Jensen was awarded a Nobel prize for other investing insights.)

Fama/French "Luck Versus Skill in the Cross Section of Mutual Fund Returns" :https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=1356021 (This is the paper that French refers to in the video I linked.)

Here is an interesting one, something we tend to forget: Stock-picking is a Keynesian beauty contest, not really a business forecasting exercise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest)

Finally:
S&P SPIVA gateway: https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/spiva/#/
S&P Manager Persistence gateway: https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/in...nce-scorecard/ Here is decades of data; I suggest that you study particularly the Manager Persistence reports.

If those are not enough, let me know. I have more.
__________________
Ignoramus et ignorabimus
OldShooter is offline  
Old 10-22-2021, 09:57 AM   #79
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Qs Laptop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourner View Post
While it's true that very few people (even professional baseball players!) can hit 40 HRs a year, it's also true that essentially none of them can hit 40 HRs a year, consistently, year after year. Same is true with professional investors. I am not aware of any who have consistently outperformed (say, by being in the top quartile vs. their peers 80% of the time) over a period of 20+ years.
The objective is to beat the index, not necessarily be in the top quartile. Over 20 years a professional mutual fund manager can have several bad years yet still handily beat the index. Same thing the pro baseball player. He can hit 40 HR for 6 out of 10 years, hit 30 HRs for 3 of those 10 years, and maybe hit 25 the other year. Still, easily beats the number of HRs corresponding to the leaguewide average.
__________________
"If James Bond was an Amish spy, he would drink buttermilk. Shaken, not churned."
Qs Laptop is offline  
Old 10-22-2021, 10:01 AM   #80
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Qs Laptop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by easysurfer View Post
To add to the analogy, professional baseball players don't blossom til later in their careers. So, even harder to spot.
Not even remotely true. See Mike Trout, Vlad Guerrero, Ronald Acuna Jr., Fernando Tatis, Juan Soto, Wander Franco, Aaron Judge, etc. etc.

Quote:
Also, there is the possibility of injury to shorten a career.
And how often does an injury sideline a mutual fund manager?

Quote:
As for a fund manager, what happens if the manager decides to call it quits? Then what? Much easier IMO to just go for an index and pop some popcorn .
I presume the new manager would continue to carry out the objectives and methods of the previous manager. An individual investor is always free to go elsewhere.
__________________
"If James Bond was an Amish spy, he would drink buttermilk. Shaken, not churned."
Qs Laptop is offline  
Closed Thread


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

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
60% Total Stock Fund and 40% Total Bond Fund or Balanced Mutual Fund? Digital Nomad FIRE and Money 48 10-27-2021 03:48 PM
Vanguard's Performance Report: Vanguard Funds Surpassed Peers Over Long Term HI Bill FIRE and Money 35 10-03-2018 02:29 PM
Suggested growth rate for portfolio growth estimates? doneat54 FIRE and Money 35 10-01-2013 11:03 PM
Emerging and Developing GDP Growth exceeds GDP Growth in Advanced Economies bUU Other topics 3 06-28-2013 11:42 AM
See @ Last, See @ Last, Thank God I Can See @ Last Beachbumz Other topics 24 02-18-2005 08:16 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:27 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.