{myadvertisements[zone_1]}
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
PBS FRONTLINE: The Retirement Gamble
#11
(05-02-2017, 07:54 PM)Finster Wrote: It depends on what "the point being made" is.  If it's that expenses have a significant impact on investment performance, it's not relevant.  If it's that at 2% of 7% the manager winds up with 60-70% of your capital, it is, because that's wrong.

Well, I disagree.  I think the first is extremely relevant.  And a 2% whack at your capital each year for 50 years does end up with 64% of your asset gone.  People do set sums of money aside for periods up to 50 years, and even if a return is earned and deposited, that only clouds what's going on with the original amount.
Guns don't kill people, the government does.
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#12
(05-02-2017, 08:55 PM)Herring Wrote:
(05-02-2017, 07:54 PM)Finster Wrote: It depends on what "the point being made" is.  If it's that expenses have a significant impact on investment performance, it's not relevant.  If it's that at 2% of 7% the manager winds up with 60-70% of your capital, it is, because that's wrong.

Well, I disagree.  I think the first is extremely relevant.  And a 2% whack at your capital each year for 50 years does end up with 64% of your asset gone.  People do set sums of money aside for periods up to 50 years, and even if a return is earned and deposited, that only clouds what's going on with the original amount.

No no ... not "the first" wasn't relevant, my remarks weren't relevant.  That is, my remarks weren't relevant to "the point" that expenses are significant ... they were relevant to the implication that the manager winds up with 60-70% of your capital.

The whole point of quoting the prior post is so your comments can be easily read in context.
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
{myadvertisements[zone_2]}