Good post Leslie.
So, I ask again, what Canadian magazines / publications would you recommend?I have been answering newbies' questions for years now on other sites. I reiterate the constructive advice I gave above... "Do not read this magazine unless you already know the ins/outs of investing".
LOL. So, that would be none then.If you want to change the subject, start a new thread. Seems to me newbies regularly ask that question and get answered.
That's very nice of leslie but I'm not sure it matters in the context of this discussion. The question wasn't how generous are you with your time. It was: if you're going to crap on MoneySaver and its editor, what do you suggest as an alternative?As far as helping and answering newbie questions I would have to say I don't know anybody who answers them more then leslie has. And yes leslie has been answering them for years on another site.
So did you offer to write a piece to point MoneySaver's readers in the right direction? Or did you just call him up and give him crap for printing what you feel to be crappy articles?leslie said:You should not presume I have never contacted him about errors before.
Leslie is showing wisdom by not responding to this question as to do so just enables the hijacking of the thread - and the spiral into endless off topic argumentThe post has nothing to do with which magazine leslie thinks you could or should read, although it is fair to ask the question and it is up to leslie if leslie wants to answer the question.
I haven't read the Sept. issue of Money Saver, so I can't comment on the data in the article. However, it would be of no surprise to me that buy-and-hold portfolios on average outperform actively-managed portfolios.Money Saver magazine claims in the Sept issue to 'prove' that the 'buy-and-hold' strategy outperforms. It does not specify what exactly is outperforms, but the counterpart of buy-and-hold is active management that involves market-timing of both the asset mix and the individual holdings.
I didn't read the article, but I disagree with the assertion that choosing "US actively managed mutual funds" (points 1 to 5) was a invalid comparator. For the novice, average at-home investor who is being marketed by the banks and investment firms, this is the product being pushed. No leslie, you are not a normal, novice, at home investor (that's a compliment BTW) as such you are not targeted by these products. Likewise, the intended audience for this article is that same person, not an accountant who likes to scour balance sheets.The author chose the performance results from US actively managed mutual funds to represent the 'active' side of the issue. This is not a valid representation with the following problems.
There is simply no evidence that active management in any shape or form -- whether stock picking or market timing, on average, outperforms buy-and-hold. If there is, I'd like to see it. But there is plenty of research showing active management underperforms.