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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (54758)	4/5/1999 10:04:00 PM
From: David Rosenthal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Michael, It is like expecting his shadow to knock out the shadow boxing puncher. For this argument to be valid you must be assuming that Don King is not the promoter. Dave

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (54758)	4/5/1999 11:14:00 PM
From: RealMuLan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Mike: not sure whether this has been posted here or not. "Inside Intel shackles PC makers" msnbc.com <<FTC probes inside Intel's marketing program that lines the pockets of PC makers By Lisa DiCarlo, PC Week ZDNN April 5 — Federal Trade Commission investigators looking into allegations of Intel Corp.'s tight-fisted control over PC makers might want to follow the money—specifically, the hundreds of millions of dollars Intel spends annually with PC makers for the Intel Inside program. .... Funding from the Intel Inside program covered about half of one top PC maker's $100 million 1997 advertising budget. Another licensee used the funding to pay for half of last year's $64 million budget for non-U.S. regions. Still another spent $1.6 billion on Intel chips in 1997; as part of the program, the company was reimbursed about $50 million for advertising. >> I think one of these two licensee would be Dell.

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (54758)	4/6/1999 7:25:00 PM
From: BGR	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Michael, Fixed income portfolios may appear to have different objectives and hence different return goals, but at heart they are simply another portfolio that generate cash at a lesser risk. Hence, if you adjust for risk, they are very well comparable to the market. To re-iterate the point, if a portfolio lags the market in a risk adjusted manner, it is not doing so well. The adjustment is crucial. Mutual funds, indeed, are huge today. But compared to the total size of the market which has also increased over the years and noting the total number of mutual funds which also has grown over the years, the average NAV of the mutual funds as compared to the overall market has not changed significantly over the years. So, they were always big in a relative sense. In fact, even the largest mutual funds are less than 1% of the entire market, and the smaller ones have little more influence that some individual investors in the DELL thread (I am serious here). Further while size has been shown to be negatively correlated with returns, even adjusted for size majority of mutual funds have consistently lagged the market. Of course, the 80%+ number is a real eye opener and completely novel! BTW, the average of the average definitely can never beat the market, but nobody is comparing the average of the mutual funds to the market return! If majority of mutual funds lag the market, that is a seriously lop-sided distribution. Also, I do not think that the 80%+ number that I quoted included index funds. The number was for actively managed mutual funds. Now, as for shadow index funds, I am sure than many active fund managers do that. It is best for the investors to drop those funds and go for an index fund IMHO. -BGR.