So if you had $70,000 to invest what would you do?

[LordSnailz]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: TheNinja

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Are you fully funding your Roth IRA and 401k?

I'm 6% plus my company matches 6% for my 401K. I have no Roth IRA right now. Maxing out 401k would be smarter than Roth yet from my understanding...correct?

The rule of thumb is:
1. do 401k up to % that employer matches (there is usually a limit, such as "we match 50% up to 5% of your salary")
2. then Roth IRA unless income is too high (something over $100K, check irs.gov or google)
3. then 401k up to max allowed

You can still get a Roth IRA for 2006, it's worth starting one at Vanguard or Fidelity and putting in your $4K + $4K for 2006 and 2007, since it grows tax-free, is tax-free when you take it out at retirement.

If you find in 3+ years you need the money for your house you can take out your original contributions to the Roth (but not growth) without penalties. If you're a first-time homebuyer you can even take out the growth (but only after 5 years).

After #3, and you're up to the limit of Roth IRA, does it make sense to go with a traditional IRA?

 

[PAB]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: PAB

Originally posted by: TheNinja
Here's the situation:

I decided not to buy in California right now. The market in my area is far too risky, -7% last year, I'd be getting an Interest only loan, and might only be around 3-5 years. So what should I do with my $70,000? I want to keep around 20k in my savings, which I get a guarenteed 5.05% return. What should I do with the rest? I'm not a big stock picker guy. I'm thinking of splitting 3-4 ways but into what? I always hear about Index funds that get an average of 6-10%. I'm looking for medium to medium-low risk.

<-- Investing N00b


edit: err bonds, not bongs

I'll make the one serious response to this thread so far.

$70k dosent get you much in the world anymore, housing or stock market. Any investment you make in the market is inherently risky. You have to take risk to get a return. If you don't or you're not comfortable with it, you're doomed to just beat inflation by a percent or two.

Index funds track benchmark indicies, a lot of people on ATOT are convinced they're awesome and the greatest thing since sliced bread - I disagree. I like equity funds that arent hampered by picking a stock limited to the Standard and Poors.

Equity based mutual funds can be a great way to diversify your portfolio while keeping costs relatively low. To allocate even $100k properly you're going to have a lot of odd lots of stock in different sectors. Plus, you already admit you're not a big stock picker so thats really not an option.

I've done the homework and if you are not in a wrap eligible account, here are a couple of funds that have probably (I havent compared them against all of them) beat everything from Vanguard and are at the top of their game. These are all no load, I own them all.

JSVAX - Janus Contrarian
JAOSX - Janus Overseas
JORNX - Janus Orion
RYVPX - Royce Value Plus
RGFAX - Royce Heritage

If you'd like to hear other high quality no load funds that my research indicates are strong performers, let me know.

lol i love you guys who own 5-10 mutual funds...congrats you own pieces of thousands of companies while paying high management fees when you could achieve the same diversification of risk with an S&P 500 or Russell 2k ETF.

efficient frontier

ETF's do not understand the business cycle. You're owning a basket of stocks, nothing more. Smart money managers understand that when the fed raises or holds rates steady, certain sectors go into favor and some out of favor. They understand the cycle and can rotate their holdings accordingly, whereas with an ETF you're sitting around holding the bag as cyclicals start tanking.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: PAB

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: PAB

Originally posted by: TheNinja
Here's the situation:

I decided not to buy in California right now. The market in my area is far too risky, -7% last year, I'd be getting an Interest only loan, and might only be around 3-5 years. So what should I do with my $70,000? I want to keep around 20k in my savings, which I get a guarenteed 5.05% return. What should I do with the rest? I'm not a big stock picker guy. I'm thinking of splitting 3-4 ways but into what? I always hear about Index funds that get an average of 6-10%. I'm looking for medium to medium-low risk.

<-- Investing N00b


edit: err bonds, not bongs

I'll make the one serious response to this thread so far.

$70k dosent get you much in the world anymore, housing or stock market. Any investment you make in the market is inherently risky. You have to take risk to get a return. If you don't or you're not comfortable with it, you're doomed to just beat inflation by a percent or two.

Index funds track benchmark indicies, a lot of people on ATOT are convinced they're awesome and the greatest thing since sliced bread - I disagree. I like equity funds that arent hampered by picking a stock limited to the Standard and Poors.

Equity based mutual funds can be a great way to diversify your portfolio while keeping costs relatively low. To allocate even $100k properly you're going to have a lot of odd lots of stock in different sectors. Plus, you already admit you're not a big stock picker so thats really not an option.

I've done the homework and if you are not in a wrap eligible account, here are a couple of funds that have probably (I havent compared them against all of them) beat everything from Vanguard and are at the top of their game. These are all no load, I own them all.

JSVAX - Janus Contrarian
JAOSX - Janus Overseas
JORNX - Janus Orion
RYVPX - Royce Value Plus
RGFAX - Royce Heritage

If you'd like to hear other high quality no load funds that my research indicates are strong performers, let me know.

lol i love you guys who own 5-10 mutual funds...congrats you own pieces of thousands of companies while paying high management fees when you could achieve the same diversification of risk with an S&P 500 or Russell 2k ETF.

efficient frontier

ETF's do not understand the business cycle. You're owning a basket of stocks, nothing more. Smart money managers understand that when the fed raises or holds rates steady, certain sectors go into favor and some out of favor. They understand the cycle and can rotate their holdings accordingly, whereas with an ETF you're sitting around holding the bag as cyclicals start tanking.

What percentage of mutal funds beat the S&P?

 

[PAB]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: PAB

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: PAB

Originally posted by: TheNinja
Here's the situation:

I decided not to buy in California right now. The market in my area is far too risky, -7% last year, I'd be getting an Interest only loan, and might only be around 3-5 years. So what should I do with my $70,000? I want to keep around 20k in my savings, which I get a guarenteed 5.05% return. What should I do with the rest? I'm not a big stock picker guy. I'm thinking of splitting 3-4 ways but into what? I always hear about Index funds that get an average of 6-10%. I'm looking for medium to medium-low risk.

<-- Investing N00b


edit: err bonds, not bongs

I'll make the one serious response to this thread so far.

$70k dosent get you much in the world anymore, housing or stock market. Any investment you make in the market is inherently risky. You have to take risk to get a return. If you don't or you're not comfortable with it, you're doomed to just beat inflation by a percent or two.

Index funds track benchmark indicies, a lot of people on ATOT are convinced they're awesome and the greatest thing since sliced bread - I disagree. I like equity funds that arent hampered by picking a stock limited to the Standard and Poors.

Equity based mutual funds can be a great way to diversify your portfolio while keeping costs relatively low. To allocate even $100k properly you're going to have a lot of odd lots of stock in different sectors. Plus, you already admit you're not a big stock picker so thats really not an option.

I've done the homework and if you are not in a wrap eligible account, here are a couple of funds that have probably (I havent compared them against all of them) beat everything from Vanguard and are at the top of their game. These are all no load, I own them all.

JSVAX - Janus Contrarian
JAOSX - Janus Overseas
JORNX - Janus Orion
RYVPX - Royce Value Plus
RGFAX - Royce Heritage

If you'd like to hear other high quality no load funds that my research indicates are strong performers, let me know.

lol i love you guys who own 5-10 mutual funds...congrats you own pieces of thousands of companies while paying high management fees when you could achieve the same diversification of risk with an S&P 500 or Russell 2k ETF.

efficient frontier

ETF's do not understand the business cycle. You're owning a basket of stocks, nothing more. Smart money managers understand that when the fed raises or holds rates steady, certain sectors go into favor and some out of favor. They understand the cycle and can rotate their holdings accordingly, whereas with an ETF you're sitting around holding the bag as cyclicals start tanking.

What percentage of mutal funds beat the S&P?

How long of a timespan? Most of my funds have beaten/are beating the S&P by at least 50 basis points..

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: LordSnailz

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: TheNinja

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Are you fully funding your Roth IRA and 401k?

I'm 6% plus my company matches 6% for my 401K. I have no Roth IRA right now. Maxing out 401k would be smarter than Roth yet from my understanding...correct?

The rule of thumb is:
1. do 401k up to % that employer matches (there is usually a limit, such as "we match 50% up to 5% of your salary")
2. then Roth IRA unless income is too high (something over $100K, check irs.gov or google)
3. then 401k up to max allowed

You can still get a Roth IRA for 2006, it's worth starting one at Vanguard or Fidelity and putting in your $4K + $4K for 2006 and 2007, since it grows tax-free, is tax-free when you take it out at retirement.

If you find in 3+ years you need the money for your house you can take out your original contributions to the Roth (but not growth) without penalties. If you're a first-time homebuyer you can even take out the growth (but only after 5 years).

After #3, and you're up to the limit of Roth IRA, does it make sense to go with a traditional IRA?

You use up your contribution limit with the Roth. Also, many people with 401ks can't get a tax deduction with a trad IRA, but they can still contribute to a Roth because it's after-tax money.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: PAB

Originally posted by: Mwilding
What percentage of mutal funds beat the S&P?

How long of a timespan? Most of my funds have beaten/are beating the S&P by at least 50 basis points..

That's why over time you should invest in both the S&P 500 and at least one foreign index fund.

Your Janus world fund did better than the S&P 500 last year but so did my Vanguard European and emerging markets stock index funds. If you hold both domestic and foreign index funds over years they tend to give a return that's slightly better than the S&P500 and which is better than most active funds over time.

You're saying that you can do better than the market by market timing. True, if you guess right consistently. But that's adding risk, and most professionals guess wrong often enough that over time they do worse not better.

 

[PAB]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: PAB

Originally posted by: Mwilding
What percentage of mutal funds beat the S&P?

How long of a timespan? Most of my funds have beaten/are beating the S&P by at least 50 basis points..

That's why over time you should invest in both the S&P 500 and at least one foreign index fund.

Your Janus world fund did better than the S&P 500 last year but so did my Vanguard European and emerging markets stock index funds. If you hold both domestic and foreign index funds over years they tend to give a return that's slightly better than the S&P500 and which is better than most active funds over time.

You're saying that you can do better than the market by market timing. True, if you guess right consistently. But that's adding risk, and most professionals guess wrong often enough that over time they do worse not better.

Market timing = Selling before a big block of shares hits, which is an illegal practice.

I'm saying fund managers understand sector rotation in a dynamic economy, which we are in.

I havent checked, but I'm confident that most of if not all of my funds has done better than the S&P. I hold several foreign positions as well and all of them have done quite nicely since November. At one point in January I was up 16% from November.

The selling point a lot of people use when selling index funds is IF YOU CANT BEAT THE MARKET, OWN THE MARKET - buying ETF's and funds tied to a particular indicies. Thats not right. I've outperformed almost every benchmark index even during this subprime hysteria.

It seems to me that people here on AT would rather own funds like DODGX rather than a fund like LETRX, which is an example of why most people dont beat the benchmark indicies.

 

[KCfromNC]

Originally posted by: PAB
ETF's do not understand the business cycle. You're owning a basket of stocks, nothing more. Smart money managers understand that when the fed raises or holds rates steady, certain sectors go into favor and some out of favor. They understand the cycle and can rotate their holdings accordingly, whereas with an ETF you're sitting around holding the bag as cyclicals start tanking.

And people smarter than "smart" money mangers realize that this sort of behavior leads to buying high and selling low that comes from performance chasing. That's why the "smart" money managers don't beat their indexes over any significant amount of time.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: PAB

Originally posted by: TheNinja
Here's the situation:

I decided not to buy in California right now. The market in my area is far too risky, -7% last year, I'd be getting an Interest only loan, and might only be around 3-5 years. So what should I do with my $70,000? I want to keep around 20k in my savings, which I get a guarenteed 5.05% return. What should I do with the rest? I'm not a big stock picker guy. I'm thinking of splitting 3-4 ways but into what? I always hear about Index funds that get an average of 6-10%. I'm looking for medium to medium-low risk.

<-- Investing N00b


edit: err bonds, not bongs

I'll make the one serious response to this thread so far.

$70k dosent get you much in the world anymore, housing or stock market. Any investment you make in the market is inherently risky. You have to take risk to get a return. If you don't or you're not comfortable with it, you're doomed to just beat inflation by a percent or two.

Index funds track benchmark indicies, a lot of people on ATOT are convinced they're awesome and the greatest thing since sliced bread - I disagree. I like equity funds that arent hampered by picking a stock limited to the Standard and Poors.

Equity based mutual funds can be a great way to diversify your portfolio while keeping costs relatively low. To allocate even $100k properly you're going to have a lot of odd lots of stock in different sectors. Plus, you already admit you're not a big stock picker so thats really not an option.

I've done the homework and if you are not in a wrap eligible account, here are a couple of funds that have probably (I havent compared them against all of them) beat everything from Vanguard and are at the top of their game. These are all no load, I own them all.

JSVAX - Janus Contrarian
JAOSX - Janus Overseas
JORNX - Janus Orion
RYVPX - Royce Value Plus
RGFAX - Royce Heritage

If you'd like to hear other high quality no load funds that my research indicates are strong performers, let me know.

I own RYVPX and JAOSX. The 400 stock dump last month was great for me--perfect time to invest more. RYVPX is up 5.245% since I bought it on Jan 5 and Mar 2. JAOSX is only up 1.425% since I bought it on Jan 7 (but thats excluding today's gains).

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: PAB

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
That's why over time you should invest in both the S&P 500 and at least one foreign index fund.

Your Janus world fund did better than the S&P 500 last year but so did my Vanguard European and emerging markets stock index funds. If you hold both domestic and foreign index funds over years they tend to give a return that's slightly better than the S&P500 and which is better than most active funds over time.

You're saying that you can do better than the market by market timing. True, if you guess right consistently. But that's adding risk, and most professionals guess wrong often enough that over time they do worse not better.

Market timing = Selling before a big block of shares hits, which is an illegal practice.

I'm saying fund managers understand sector rotation in a dynamic economy, which we are in.

You're confusing insider trading with market timing. Here is a good definition of market timing (use google's "define:" for more):
"Determination of when to buy or sell securities through use of fundamental or technical indicators. Mutual funds investors can accomplish market timing decisions by switching from different types of funds within a family as the market outlook changes. For example, the investor can switch from a stock fund to a money market fund and back again."

I havent checked, but I'm confident that most of if not all of my funds has done better than the S&P. I hold several foreign positions as well and all of them have done quite nicely since November. At one point in January I was up 16% from November.

The selling point a lot of people use when selling index funds is IF YOU CANT BEAT THE MARKET, OWN THE MARKET - buying ETF's and funds tied to a particular indicies. Thats not right. I've outperformed almost every benchmark index even during this subprime hysteria..

Actually, the philosophy is:

Almost no one except Warren Buffet has beaten the market consistently, over the years, so any fund choice other than an index fund is a bet, adding risk in the hope (but not certainty) of higher returns.

Saying "I beat the market for 2 months straight!" shouldn't impress anyone. You can earn a 100% return in a few seconds in Vegas too. Higher return, higher risk.

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: PAB

Originally posted by: TheNinja
Here's the situation:

I decided not to buy in California right now. The market in my area is far too risky, -7% last year, I'd be getting an Interest only loan, and might only be around 3-5 years. So what should I do with my $70,000? I want to keep around 20k in my savings, which I get a guarenteed 5.05% return. What should I do with the rest? I'm not a big stock picker guy. I'm thinking of splitting 3-4 ways but into what? I always hear about Index funds that get an average of 6-10%. I'm looking for medium to medium-low risk.

<-- Investing N00b


edit: err bonds, not bongs

I'll make the one serious response to this thread so far.

$70k dosent get you much in the world anymore, housing or stock market. Any investment you make in the market is inherently risky. You have to take risk to get a return. If you don't or you're not comfortable with it, you're doomed to just beat inflation by a percent or two.

Index funds track benchmark indicies, a lot of people on ATOT are convinced they're awesome and the greatest thing since sliced bread - I disagree. I like equity funds that arent hampered by picking a stock limited to the Standard and Poors.

Equity based mutual funds can be a great way to diversify your portfolio while keeping costs relatively low. To allocate even $100k properly you're going to have a lot of odd lots of stock in different sectors. Plus, you already admit you're not a big stock picker so thats really not an option.

I've done the homework and if you are not in a wrap eligible account, here are a couple of funds that have probably (I havent compared them against all of them) beat everything from Vanguard and are at the top of their game. These are all no load, I own them all.

JSVAX - Janus Contrarian
JAOSX - Janus Overseas
JORNX - Janus Orion
RYVPX - Royce Value Plus
RGFAX - Royce Heritage

If you'd like to hear other high quality no load funds that my research indicates are strong performers, let me know.

I own RYVPX and JAOSX. The 400 stock dump last month was great for me--perfect time to invest more. RYVPX is up 5.245% since I bought it on Jan 5 and Mar 2. JAOSX is only up 1.425% since I bought it on Jan 7 (but thats excluding today's gains).

Heh...those are actually the 2 I was most interested after spending only about 5 minutes on each one though.

 

[amdhunter]

I'd buy some 70,000 dollar rims for my car.

 

[DaveSimmons]

PS -

Higher-risk investing is a perfectly valid choice, I'm not trying to imply it isn't.

It also isn't a superior strategy, just a different mix of risk and reward.

You're betting that you'll be the rare person who does outperform the market, while most of the other active investors underperform. You're accepting higher risk for the hope of higher returns, and it's not a sure bet.

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
PS -

Higher-risk investing is a perfectly valid choice, I'm not trying to imply it isn't.

It also isn't a superior strategy, just a different mix of risk and reward.

You're betting that you'll be the rare person who does outperform the market, while most of the other active investors underperform. You're accepting higher risk for the hope of higher returns, and it's not a sure bet.

Is there really any, like say with a market index (or index fund) that I would get 7% with very minimal risk? I always read these places that talk about investing basically saying that historically you can get 8-10% before tax return through an index fund or something.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: TheNinja
Is there really any, like say with a market index (or index fund) that I would get 7% with very minimal risk? I always read these places that talk about investing basically saying that historically you can get 8-10% before tax return through an index fund or something.

They're often talking about an S&P 500 index fund, Vanguard VFINX is one such but Fidelity and most other brokerages also have them.

There is close to zero risk of earning at least 7% over the years but the risk is higher the shorter the time period gets. 2-3 years is a fairly short period.

The investing PAB does is much riskier, but done in the hope of earning more like 20% a year. If he succeeds, then w00t! But if he guesses wrong he could even lose money.

 

[PAB]

Originally posted by: TheNinja

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
PS -

Higher-risk investing is a perfectly valid choice, I'm not trying to imply it isn't.

It also isn't a superior strategy, just a different mix of risk and reward.

You're betting that you'll be the rare person who does outperform the market, while most of the other active investors underperform. You're accepting higher risk for the hope of higher returns, and it's not a sure bet.

Is there really any, like say with a market index (or index fund) that I would get 7% with very minimal risk? I always read these places that talk about investing basically saying that historically you can get 8-10% before tax return through an index fund or something.

If you want 6-7% with minimal risk, you're going to be in one of the top performing bond fund.

8-10% is the average, and I try to beat that aggressively. As I said before, I was up 16% since November. Granted, I am risk tolerant and my idea of long term has been 24 hours in the past, but the point is that I did it.

 

[DaveSimmons]

There's also an increase in work needed to try to beat the market.

If you buy VFINX and hold it for years, your total effort is zero during the year and about 5 minutes at tax time to punch in the number from your 1099.

How much time do you spend on trading and research, PAB?

 

[sager66]

Since your objective is to preserve the principal, as compared to putting the funds at risk in an investment . . a high-yield FDIC insured CD

 

[TheNinja]

So many choices. I appreciate people spending time giving advice. Gotta love ATOT everything from investing money to YAGTs.

 

[dr150]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: PAB

Originally posted by: TheNinja
Here's the situation:

I decided not to buy in California right now. The market in my area is far too risky, -7% last year, I'd be getting an Interest only loan, and might only be around 3-5 years. So what should I do with my $70,000? I want to keep around 20k in my savings, which I get a guarenteed 5.05% return. What should I do with the rest? I'm not a big stock picker guy. I'm thinking of splitting 3-4 ways but into what? I always hear about Index funds that get an average of 6-10%. I'm looking for medium to medium-low risk.

<-- Investing N00b


edit: err bonds, not bongs

I'll make the one serious response to this thread so far.

$70k dosent get you much in the world anymore, housing or stock market. Any investment you make in the market is inherently risky. You have to take risk to get a return. If you don't or you're not comfortable with it, you're doomed to just beat inflation by a percent or two.

Index funds track benchmark indicies, a lot of people on ATOT are convinced they're awesome and the greatest thing since sliced bread - I disagree. I like equity funds that arent hampered by picking a stock limited to the Standard and Poors.

Equity based mutual funds can be a great way to diversify your portfolio while keeping costs relatively low. To allocate even $100k properly you're going to have a lot of odd lots of stock in different sectors. Plus, you already admit you're not a big stock picker so thats really not an option.

I've done the homework and if you are not in a wrap eligible account, here are a couple of funds that have probably (I havent compared them against all of them) beat everything from Vanguard and are at the top of their game. These are all no load, I own them all.

JSVAX - Janus Contrarian
JAOSX - Janus Overseas
JORNX - Janus Orion
RYVPX - Royce Value Plus
RGFAX - Royce Heritage

If you'd like to hear other high quality no load funds that my research indicates are strong performers, let me know.

lol i love you guys who own 5-10 mutual funds...congrats you own pieces of thousands of companies while paying high management fees when you could achieve the same diversification of risk with an S&P 500 or Russell 2k ETF.

efficient frontier

Well, I own a China fund where I reluctantly get charged 2% fee, but my return is exceptional. Well worth it. I also own the China ETF with similar returns but not as good as my other China fund...if it underperforms the ETF, then my money will go into the ETF.

I'm not a fan of certain indexes as the growth is too slow for my taste. I emulate a top performing hedge fund as best I can to get better than market returns.

 

[FallenHero]

stocks, very aggressive investments as I am young. Or buy a viper...one of the 2.

 

[Miramonti]

I would daytrade with it.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: TheNinja

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
PS -

Higher-risk investing is a perfectly valid choice, I'm not trying to imply it isn't.

It also isn't a superior strategy, just a different mix of risk and reward.

You're betting that you'll be the rare person who does outperform the market, while most of the other active investors underperform. You're accepting higher risk for the hope of higher returns, and it's not a sure bet.

Is there really any, like say with a market index (or index fund) that I would get 7% with very minimal risk? I always read these places that talk about investing basically saying that historically you can get 8-10% before tax return through an index fund or something.

higher the risk, higher the return.

u should consider FXI if you want in on the china dip

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: dr150

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: PAB

Originally posted by: TheNinja
Here's the situation:

I decided not to buy in California right now. The market in my area is far too risky, -7% last year, I'd be getting an Interest only loan, and might only be around 3-5 years. So what should I do with my $70,000? I want to keep around 20k in my savings, which I get a guarenteed 5.05% return. What should I do with the rest? I'm not a big stock picker guy. I'm thinking of splitting 3-4 ways but into what? I always hear about Index funds that get an average of 6-10%. I'm looking for medium to medium-low risk.

<-- Investing N00b


edit: err bonds, not bongs

I'll make the one serious response to this thread so far.

$70k dosent get you much in the world anymore, housing or stock market. Any investment you make in the market is inherently risky. You have to take risk to get a return. If you don't or you're not comfortable with it, you're doomed to just beat inflation by a percent or two.

Index funds track benchmark indicies, a lot of people on ATOT are convinced they're awesome and the greatest thing since sliced bread - I disagree. I like equity funds that arent hampered by picking a stock limited to the Standard and Poors.

Equity based mutual funds can be a great way to diversify your portfolio while keeping costs relatively low. To allocate even $100k properly you're going to have a lot of odd lots of stock in different sectors. Plus, you already admit you're not a big stock picker so thats really not an option.

I've done the homework and if you are not in a wrap eligible account, here are a couple of funds that have probably (I havent compared them against all of them) beat everything from Vanguard and are at the top of their game. These are all no load, I own them all.

JSVAX - Janus Contrarian
JAOSX - Janus Overseas
JORNX - Janus Orion
RYVPX - Royce Value Plus
RGFAX - Royce Heritage

If you'd like to hear other high quality no load funds that my research indicates are strong performers, let me know.

lol i love you guys who own 5-10 mutual funds...congrats you own pieces of thousands of companies while paying high management fees when you could achieve the same diversification of risk with an S&P 500 or Russell 2k ETF.

efficient frontier

Well, I own a China fund where I reluctantly get charged 2% fee, but my return is exceptional. Well worth it. I also own the China ETF with similar returns but not as good as my other China fund...if it underperforms the ETF, then my money will go into the ETF.

I'm not a fan of certain indexes as the growth is too slow for my taste. I emulate a top performing hedge fund as best I can to get better than market returns.

i am a big fan of chinese ETFs, even with 2% mgmt fees. but buying 5 mutual funds is a bit silly.

 

[PAB]

Originally posted by: TheNinja
So many choices. I appreciate people spending time giving advice. Gotta love ATOT everything from investing money to YAGTs.

Money is FAR easier by comparison.