backing up what inherently I knew to be true. The fact comes thanks to an article in the Wall St. journal titled, best stock mutual fund of the decade.
The annualized return on the fund was 18%. The fund was extremely volitile with big time swings up and down.
Now here is something interesting. The average shareholder in the fund lost 11% annually. How does that happen? Somehow investment advisors ripped off the public through commissions or something else, right? Nope, pretty sure this is a "NO LOAD" fund.
It is a 3.7 billion dollar fund so the answer isn't "a few" stupid investors either, although blaming it on the public rather than Wall ST. is a lot closer to the truth.
The annualized return on the fund was 18%. The fund was extremely volitile with big time swings up and down.
Now here is something interesting. The average shareholder in the fund lost 11% annually. How does that happen? Somehow investment advisors ripped off the public through commissions or something else, right? Nope, pretty sure this is a "NO LOAD" fund.
It is a 3.7 billion dollar fund so the answer isn't "a few" stupid investors either, although blaming it on the public rather than Wall ST. is a lot closer to the truth.
Comment