Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To all defending the no-load funds and quoting motley fool and those sources, etc. Have you all noticed that all over their website is no-load fund advertising, or do it yourself investment tools?
Motley Fool didn't teach me to hate load funds as a concept. In fact, I don't especially care what Motley Fool says about them. Working in the industry, combined with common sense, taught me to loathe them. Load funds exist so that the fund company can make more money (from anyone unwise enough to buy them without at least getting the dubious value of a full-commission broker's advice) or so that the broker can recommend mutual funds and get paid. Why else would brokers recommend them? Surely not in the client's interest, because brokers' interest is in trading, and that's how they get paid. With a buy-and-hold investment like a mutual fund, obviously they aren't going to recommend what is in the client's best interest--they are going to expect to get paid, and without a lot of trading, the load is the only pay they'll get. At one time, load funds were the only game in the mutual fund town. Now they relate to the mutual fund metropolis much as the Apple Lisa relates to your current computer.
To all defending the no-load funds and quoting motley fool and those sources, etc. Have you all noticed that all over their website is no-load fund advertising, or do it yourself investment tools?
Would you have bought GM last year when it was tanking? You did if you were in an index non-managed mutual fund.
Use Morningstar & put funds to the test before you quote the Motley Fool who has clearly sold out. Compare them over a 10-20 year period and factor in the up-front load with the loaded, actively managed funds.
If you are in an IRA till your 59.5 and you have 20 years until that point in your life, you might want to think about the long term. Saving 5% today is not worth losing 20% in 20 years.
American Funds is everywhere.
The best time to buy is when its tanking.
There are funds that do just as well as AF's but its a safe bet to invest AF's in an IRA for the next 30 years or so.
Sure, it would be nice if OAKBX's ER (.81%) were lower, but then it's still much lower than average for a moderate allocation fund (1.35%). Being a Vanguard fund, it's no surprise that VWELX's ER is very low (.29%), and that does give it a performance edge over most other funds in the category...however OAKBX still outperformed VWELX by nearly 4% per year over the last 10 years. While past performance is no guarantee of future results, yada, yada, yada, OAKBX's great long-term track record--and with the same manager since inception, BTW--makes it very easy, for me personally, to pay that extra .5% in management fees.
But like I said, I agree with you that VWELX is a good fund and would be a solid choice. I just happen to consider OAKBX one of the "elite" funds.
I won't argue against OAKBX. It's definitely an elite fund. Just hope the manager doesn't ever leave
To all defending the no-load funds and quoting motley fool and those sources, etc. Have you all noticed that all over their website is no-load fund advertising, or do it yourself investment tools?
Would you have bought GM last year when it was tanking? You did if you were in an index non-managed mutual fund.
Use Morningstar & put funds to the test before you quote the Motley Fool who has clearly sold out. Compare them over a 10-20 year period and factor in the up-front load with the loaded, actively managed funds.
If you are in an IRA till your 59.5 and you have 20 years until that point in your life, you might want to think about the long term. Saving 5% today is not worth losing 20% in 20 years.
You must work on commission selling load funds. Otherwise you would not make such a ridiculous statement.
I put a small amount into a IRA using 2 American Funds (Fundamental Investors-A and Washington Mutual Investors-A) in 1997 when I left a job over 10 years ago. I think I had to pay the load, which was ridiculous (I only buy no-loads but had no choice here). After the load, I had $566 in Fundamental and $624 in Washington Mutual. I reinvested dividends & capital gains and put no extra money in. No taxes since it is a retirement account. As of 9/30/09 (12 years later) I have $1,055.89 in Fundamental and 703.96 in Washington. Obviously, the Washington fund was/is a disaster. As to Fundamental, I think it should have done a lot better--I'll leave it to others to run the numbers. When I have a choice, I invest Vanguard with very low expense ratios and no 12b-1 fees.
Actually both of those funds are above average performers and have outperformed the S&P 500 index over most periods of 3 years or more. If you'd put your money in an S&P 500 index fund at the same time, you probably wouldn't have done any better.
My response was in answer to a question about the load. You need $1,000,000 with American Funds in order to have the load waived. (Or of course, to have access to them through a 401k).
My response was in answer to a question about the load. You need $1,000,000 with American Funds in order to have the load waived. (Or of course, to have access to them through a 401k).
Right but AF's have continued to beat the average S&P market. So they are good funds to put it in for retirement such as a Roth IRA.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
