Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : America On-Line (AOL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 1SFG who wrote (758)	1/1/1999 6:37:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Respond to of 41369

Re: Where is the management or control if all you do is sell a delisted stock and buy a newly listed stock. There really isn't any. That's why these instruments are so popular. And that's why they can't justify the kinds of expenses that managed funds have. These kinds of funds are called passive funds for just that reason. And there are no fund managers in the traditional sense. Buying and selling is mechanical. TTFN, CTC

To: 1SFG who wrote (758)	1/1/1999 7:00:00 PM
From: sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 41369

These guys are paid based on a small percentage of the total amount of funds they manage. .025% of 5 billion dollars -- lets say for the sake of argument -- is $1.25 million. Are we in agreement, so far? Now, theoretically, if the S&P 500 tanks and the Russell 2000 is taking off -- theoretically mind you -- Mr. and Mrs. Jones will transfer their retirement funds from the S&P 500 index (where it is now) to the Russell index to get the better returns. If enough Mr and Mrs Smiths do this then...the fella running the S&P 500 index will be managing less funds (on top of the loss he already sustained because the S&P 500 has tanked). Right? So the assets go down to -- lets say -- 3 billion. .025 of that amount is $.75 million. Even if MR and Mrs Smith DON'T take their money out -- the total assets can still go down. Meaning less for the fund manager. Now if he is able to raise more cash, that's another thing. But if people are getting better returns elsewhere (in other 'safe' index funds,for example) why would they give their money to him? Now, as for fund managers "playing games" to make their results better, let's just agree to disagree. ;)