On the Glassman piece:
Thanks, Mike, for doing the research! I thought that the Washington Post web site would only let you search for articles published within the last two weeks. I should have been more persistent!
However -- that's not the article. Rather, it's not the article I read, which appeared within the last two months (oh, well, three months at the outside). Perhaps Article Two is an elaboration on Article One (the one you tracked down). It must be, come to think of it, because I distinctly remember that the "investment vehicle" described in Article #2 specified that you would not get your full return if the market went up, but only about 60% of it. And the word "fund" specifically appeared.
As for the insured certificates of deposit outlined in the abstract of the November article, my question is: even if the bank gets to use your money "for free" for five years -- so what? First of all, the bank is assuming a risk: it has to return your full investment, even if the market falls by 50%. Besides, if the market went up, wouldn't you still make as much money (for yourself) as you would by buying into a bond fund, say? It certainly sounds as safe as a bond fund (no downside risk at all!), and I should think that a true bear might be looking for some safety.
jbe
P.S. Will get to a library! |
