Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
mathinvestor.org | ||
| | | | |
obliviousinvestor.com
|
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
btr.michaelkwan.com
|
|
| | | | | The confusion most commonly arises in the context of a wedding with the words spoken by the priest, minister, or officiant. It's a line that we hear all the time in television and in movies... "By the power invested in me by the State of California, I now pronounce you husband and wife...." The power [...] | |
| | | | |
ketanvijayvargiya.com
|
|
| | | | | I recently got interested in a few actively managed mutual funds from Morgan Stanley. They had high expense ratio and turnover rate but I thought, if their stellar performance continued from 2020, the extra costs would be worth it. However, that wasn't the right way to think about it. While cliched, it is true that past performance doesn't gurantee future results. I also don't control or understand the factors that go into stock selection behind the scenes - I can only trust the fund managers. CPOAX, for instance, had a really good 2020 but, when I looked back for 2 year time frames, it rarely outperformed VTSAX. I shouldn't be blindsided by a single year's performance, that too 2020 when the whole market was exuberant. There is plenty of historical evidence that actively managed funds never consistently outperform the index, if at all. So, even if the fund I selected is outperforming today, I have another headache of figuring out when to get out. They aren't well diversified. For e.g., CPOAX only contains <50 stocks, most of them large cap. If I try to compensate for that myself (for e.g., by buying Morgan Stanley's MACGX for mid-cap companies), that will complicate things further. Highly tax inefficient, if kept in taxable accounts. High costs add up in the long run. I think I should do the following: | |
| | | | |
www.screendoorpartners.com
|
|
| | | |||
