Quote:
Originally Posted by BYU71
I agree why argue. Here is one investment advisors track record over the last 5 years. 10.53 vs the S&P of 7.58 net of fees, through June 30th of this year. Therefor no argument, this an investment advisor who can make the 2-3% claim.
Oh, the 10 yr is 9.4% vs 2.88% and the fifteen year is 12.5 vs 9.22%. I don't think that someone can be that dumb lucky over that long a time period.
If you have a grudge against "some" or even "most" so called investment advisors, you might be justified. However, just because you don't know any good honest ones, you shouldn't be painting them all with such a broad brush, IMHO.
|
Instead of S&P I should have said a portfolio managed through modern portfolio theory--using index funds for each category--something as simple as:
50% Domestic (break out by large value, large growth, small value, small growth if you have enough to make it worth it)
30% International (ditto)
10% Real Estate/Commodities
10% Bonds
And I don't believe it's possible to beat it long term after costs. Long term = 30 - 50 years since that's the investment horizon for most on this board (should be time to death not time to retirement which is a big mistake some make).
I should say it's probably possible to beat this strategy long term after costs
BUT
the risk and probability of choosing the wrong portfolio manager is far greater than the reward you'll get above the index fund approach.
P.S. Five year returns mean ABSOLUTELY nothing to me. And ten year returns don't mean much to me at all.