On Aug 4, 2014, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
. . . I think joint ventures are a good thing provided they pay dividends which are really gains if you think about it.

Joint ventures are particular popular these days in Washington and Colorado.

On Aug 4, 2014, balducci wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Like I always say, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." So if you don't venture you can't gain, and a gain without a venture is nothing because if you don't venture anything you don't gain anything but I think joint ventures are a good thing provided they pay dividends which are really gains if you think about it.

Was that a serious post, or were you just having fun playing off the Ventura name?

On Aug 4, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
. . . actively managed funds are more expensive, have more trading costs and over the long term those costs add up and harm your return on investment. Over the long term, index funds outperform most actively managed funds and you get a better return on investment over the long term. And investment is a long term proposition.

On Aug 4, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
. . . you guys wanted to argue against index funds in favor of actively managed funds because some say actively managed funds outperform index funds.

On Aug 4, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
Well there you go, case closed! Invest in index funds over actively managed funds. Just make sure those index funds aren't overpriced in what they charge. Nothing more to debate about! That's what I have been saying along but you guys wanted to argue against index funds in favor of actively managed funds because some say actively managed funds outperform index funds. But the fact remains, you make more money off index funds if you wish to invest your money (and by investing, I mean it's a long term proposition).

On Aug 4, 2014, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 4, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
. . . you guys wanted to argue against index funds in favor of actively managed funds because some say actively managed funds outperform index funds.

Nobody here said anything of the sort.

Not in this thread, and not in any of the other threads on investing that you've started.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it. If not, please stop accusing us of doing things we aren't doing.

On Aug 4, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
You've completely missed the point once again. This discussion is pointless.

On Aug 4, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 4, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
Well there you go, case closed! Invest in index funds over actively managed funds. Just make sure those index funds aren't overpriced in what they charge. Nothing more to debate about! That's what I have been saying along but you guys wanted to argue against index funds in favor of actively managed funds because some say actively managed funds outperform index funds. But the fact remains, you make more money off index funds if you wish to invest your money (and by investing, I mean it's a long term proposition).

Some actively managed funds (and fund managers) DO outperform index funds.

On Aug 4, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
That courtroom isn't about the truth, it's about making the lawyers rich.

Plenty of people been falsely convicted by a jury and later found innocent through DNA testing and plenty of guilty people walk free because they have money or are or have been in positions of power.

I believe Jesse was shooting his mouth off and got punched out for it. People will sue successfully, even if you were telling the truth, just shut you up. Just because Jesse won his lawsuit doesn't mean that what Chris Kyle said wasn't true.

I believe Chris punched out Jesse and I don't believe Chris would just eat his rice krispies one morning and say "HEY! Let's just go punch Jesse Ventura out just for no reason! Just for kicks!" Things just don't work that way.

On Aug 4, 2014, balducci wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 4, 2014, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 4, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
. . . you guys wanted to argue against index funds in favor of actively managed funds because some say actively managed funds outperform index funds.

Nobody here said anything of the sort.

Not in this thread, and not in any of the other threads on investing that you've started.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it. If not, please stop accusing us of doing things we aren't doing.

FWIW, I do recall that there were some arguing in favour of actively managed funds in a since deleted thread.

On Aug 4, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 4, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
That courtroom isn't about the truth, it's about making the lawyers rich.

This is about as insightful and accurate as saying something like, "Magic isn't about entertaining people. It's about learning how to do tricks. Anyone can go on Youtube for a day and become a magician." Yes, lawyers get paid a good hourly rate. So do doctors. So do magicians. So do baseball players.

On Aug 4, 2014, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 4, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 4, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
Well there you go, case closed! Invest in index funds over actively managed funds. Just make sure those index funds aren't overpriced in what they charge. Nothing more to debate about! That's what I have been saying along but you guys wanted to argue against index funds in favor of actively managed funds because some say actively managed funds outperform index funds. But the fact remains, you make more money off index funds if you wish to invest your money (and by investing, I mean it's a long term proposition).

Some actively managed funds (and fund managers) DO outperform index funds.

Rarely do they do it long-term, however (whatever long-term is).

On Aug 3, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
Here are some core principles of Benjamin Graham that are valid today as they were during his lifetime:

1) A stock is not just a ticker symbol or an electronic blip; it is an ownership interest in an actual business, with an underlying value that does not depend on its share price.

2) The market is a pendulum that forever swings between unsustainable optimism (which makes stocks too expensive) and unjustified pessimism (which makes stocks too cheap). The intelligent investor is a realist who sells to optimists and buys from pessimists.

3) The future value of every investment is a function of its present price. The higher the price you pay, the lower your return will be.

4) No matter how careful you are, the one risk no investor can ever eliminate is the risk of being wrong. Only by insisting on what is called a "Margin of Safety" which is never overpaying, no matter how exciting an investment seems to be- can you minimize your odds of error.

And the most important lesson of all:

5) The secret to your financial success is inside yourself. If you become a critical thinker who takes no Wall Street "fact" on faith, and you invest with patient confidence, you can take steady advantage of even the worst bear markets. By developing your discipline and courage, you can refuse to let other people's mood swings govern your financial destiny. In the end, how your investments behave is much less important than how you behave.

You can see some life lessons in Benjamin Graham's teachings.

“When the enemy of my enemy is willing to use plasma weapons inside a hotel, I think I can do better than stupid aphorisms, General.
-Captain Kevyn Andreyasn”

― Howard Tayler, Resident Mad Scientist

On Aug 4, 2014, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 4, 2014, balducci wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 4, 2014, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 4, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
. . . you guys wanted to argue against index funds in favor of actively managed funds because some say actively managed funds outperform index funds.

Nobody here said anything of the sort.

Not in this thread, and not in any of the other threads on investing that you've started.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it. If not, please stop accusing us of doing things we aren't doing.

FWIW, I do recall that there were some arguing in favour of actively managed funds in a since deleted thread.

I must have missed that one.

Too bad it was deleted; I'd have liked to have seen it.

Thanks, b.

Ben Smith, Kyle's roommate during SEAL training, still disputes that his friend lied about the confrontation, which occurred at a memorial service for a SEAL who had been killed when he jumped on a grenade.

Smith said he's having trouble "grasping" how the American judicial system could come up with a verdict like this, recalling that Kyle had told him about the confrontation with Ventura.

"He was running his mouth and saying some really vile stuff, saying we should lose more men, more heroes, more guys out there who were fighting the fight. Is that not almost treasonous? Like you're anti-American, saying we should lose? [Chris] said 'you say that again, I'm going to pop you in the -- I'm going to get ya.' And he did and he came over and did it," said Smith.

Brian Kilmeade asked if the verdict may have been different if Kyle had been here to testify in his own defense.

Smith believes it would have made a "huge difference," recalling that Kyle always told the truth "no matter how hard it was."