XPost: rec.arts.comics.strips   
   From: psperson@old.netcom.invalid   
      
   On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 18:22:11 -0500, William Hyde    
   wrote:   
      
   >Paul S Person wrote:   
      
      
      
   >Buy a broad index, and wait.  This strategy has worked now for about a    
   >century and a half.  Mind you, it was not easy to do before cheap index    
   >funds were introduced in the early 1970s on the recommendation of a    
   >scholar of the markets.   
   >   
   >It is unfortunate, however, if you put your entire fortune into the    
   >market in September 1929.  Then you will have to wait a long while.   
      
   Diversification is always a good idea.   
      
   >And before regulation in the 30s, bear traps and bull traps, plus many a    
   >pump and dump operation, constituted legal robbery of the small    
   >investor.  I expect that those regulations, if not already revoked, will    
   >soon be gone.   
      
   Wasn't there an amusing episode when some non-rich folks managed to do   
   this a while back? Not so amusing to the rich, of course.   
      
   >Even without that they still exist in somewhat better disguise now,    
   >though on small and often unregulated markets the old pump and dump    
   >still exists in all its glory.  A ... person I know  tried to pull this    
   >on a friend of mine, one of the canniest folk you'll ever meet.  That    
   >did not work.   
      
   Good for your friend.   
      
   >In fact, I made money on the first stock I ever bought when it was    
   >targeted for this operation.  All unknowing, I bought a year before the    
   >pump and was nervous enough that I sold before the dump.  It was years    
   >before I figured out what happened.   
      
   The last time I dipped a toe in that water, I carefully analysed   
   various funds to see which had done best in the post-2009 environment   
   and invested in some because I figured the basic situation wouldn't be   
   changing any time soon. And this worked! (I got out when the   
   organization's security made it clear that I was as dirt under their   
   feet, so this piece of dirt took his money and left).   
      
   Several years later, I am trying to resurrect the account, this time   
   for use with a Money Market fund, but they are clearly in denial,   
   insisting that whatever is wrong must be my fault. Even when provided   
   with screen prints. So that may not happen; I'll have to cool down a   
   bit before I try again.   
      
   >> IIRC, in an economics class, we were told that "the function of the   
   >> Market is return any sizeable sum of money the non-rich may have   
   >> accumulated to its rightful owners, the rich".   
   >>    
   >> Note that it is my understanding that using Mutual Funds is supposed   
   >> to help ameliorate some of the more piratical tendencies of the   
   >> Market.   
   >   
   >Actively managed Mutual funds charge far more in fees than they are    
   >worth.  You may profit from holding them, but the vast majority of the    
   >time that is because the market went up, not due to expertise on the    
   >part of the managers.  If you hold them for many years, the fees take a    
   >substantial part of your profit.  And of course, you pay fees even in    
   >years where there is no profit.   
      
   The quarted referred to above had one index fund. I rather think the   
   bond funds consistently lost value because they were long-term and the   
   interest rates were suppressing their values. The stock funds were a   
   lot more exciting, and I learned something from then: I really wasn't   
   interested in that much excitement.   
      
   >In wild times like the run-up to the 2009 crash, possibly less than one    
   >percent of managers knew what was happening, the other 99% drove off the    
   >cliff with the market.  The failures were not punished (after all, who    
   >could have predicted the crash except those who actually read the    
   >subprime contracts?), while those who succeeded were not in general    
   >rewarded, except by the investments they had personally made.   
      
   I saw the movie. All I can say is that I thank God that I paid off my   
   mortgage in 2006 and so was not part of the problem.   
      
   >Hence my preference for index funds, which charge next to nothing.   
      
   Indeed. If I get back in, and if I venture beyond the Money Market, an   
   all-market index fund is what I would look at first. Maybe one with   
   2:1 bond:stock ratio. When I left before, the capital gain from the   
   stock funds was greater than the capital loss from the bond funds, so   
   a mixed index fund might hide the carnage and be less exciting for me.   
   --    
   "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,   
   Who evil spoke of everyone but God,   
   Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)