Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
the vast majority of trading in the public markets is long term investing, and I've given obvious examples of this in the past.

I don't think that with a billion shares traded per day one can consider the "vast majority" is for long-term investing. If you mean that individual investors generally aren't day traders then I think you are right.

However even though people may have put their money in mutual funds for the long term this does not mean that the funds are just sitting on the money. My (very conservative) retirement fund has a turnover of over 100% per year. I assume more aggressive funds trade even more frequently.

The point is that the fund always advises participants not to try to time the market and then goes ahead and does it themselves.

Another scam is to quote expenses as a percentage of the capital invested instead of as a percentage of the yield. So a fund with an expense ratio of 1% earning 5% for the year is really taking 20% of the earnings in fees. No wonder Wall Street wants to privatize Social Security.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 06:24:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the examples I've been using are index funds with practically no trading.  i generally don't believe in market timing, so a lot of my public investments are in idex funds.  I personally would find 100% turnover very high--but the fact that you are staying with the fund tells me they must be doing well.

I don't agree with your way of looking at the %'s.  but since I use index funds, my expense ratios are very low, so I don't worry about the argument.

by wchurchill on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 at 07:36:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series