Thomas J

5 hours ago, Walker88 said:

ARs and AKs have extremely limited utility, unless one wants to kill a lot of people quickly. Home defense? Your neighbors might not like it if a round passes through your wall and into their house. Hunting? If one needs 30 rounds to take down an animal, best to buy your burgers at McDonalds.

You are correct about AR-15's  That is exactly my point.  Those who wish to ban them don't seem to recognize that they really are not a particularly large and powerful caliber.  That however is not true for the AK-47 which is a 7.62x39 cartridge which is about a 31 caliber bullet compared to the AR-15 which is much smaller .22 caliber bullet. 

Regarding the 30 round clip.  That has to do with the size of the clip not the gun.  You can take any semi-automatic rifle and add a large capacity clip to it.  

Regarding using the AR-15 for hunting.  It is at best for small animals.  It really should not be used to hunt large game such as deer.   However, it was never intended as a hunting firearm.  With that said, our founding fathers did not put in the second amendment to protect them from deer.  They feared an oppressive government and notice the word in the second amendment refers to militia not to hunters. 

4 minutes ago, Oxx said:

Fund charges have come down a lot in recent years.  With the funds I listed, some are charging around 0.5%.

I will look into that.  Thank You.  I have been out of Merrill Lynch for some years now and I invest in some index funds however I purchase mostly individual securities  The dividend aristocrat stocks since I am income oriented.  So I have not looked at expense ratios recently.  When I was in the business the typical equity fund had expense ratios closer to 1.5%  When I first started in the business not only did they have those expense ratio but the A, B, C shares had front, ongoing, or back end loads. 

If you have selected funds that have outperformed the indexes by a significant amount more than their benchmark, I commend you.  You are in that 11% who managed to do it.   Given that you are familiar with Morningstar and screening again, you are obviously a lot more knowledgeable than the typical investor.   I use to hold employee meetings for companies and their retirement plans.  The typical person you had to explain the difference between an equity vs a bond fund. 

If you recall the OP was about a recommendation for a Thai Lady.  Truly for the novice investor, an index fund is a good, safe way for someone with no knowledge of the markets to get a decent return.  Certainly investing in Thai stocks is something I can't envision anyone having the expertise or confidence in the honesty of the markets to do. 

 

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

In aggregate the benefits of privately owned firearms are outweighed by the negative consequences.

Again,  you are saying that solely because 'YOU DON'T SEE THE BENEFITS"  I don't smoke so banning cigarettes does not impact me and smoking kills far more and greatly outweighs any benefits. 

I don't routinely drink anything other than beer, but alcoholism kills more and has far more devastating  health consequences than firearms but I see no great cry to ban it. 

To beat a dead horse, even if I agreed with you, it is a illusion to think that the USA or any nation can prohibit firearms from within its borders.  
Firearms are easily machined within the USA and certainly our border with Mexico and drugs proves how porous it was.  We can stop illegal migrants, we can't stop drugs, we can stop human trafficking, but somehow we can stop guns?  

If prohibition and the war on drugs proved anything its that making something illegal merely shoots it distribution to the criminal element. 

 

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

What AR-15’s are used for Clay targets - with sports shooting (as shown in your photo ?)

The AR-15 is nothing more than a .223 caliber semi-automatic rifle.  The below rifle is identical in terms of bullets used, and function.  It just doesn't look scary. 



This is where the .223 falls in terms of its size and force relative to other centerfire rifle cartridges.  at 22 caliber it is among the smallest cartridge not the most powerful.  

Again, if you ban the AR-15 because it "looks scary"  and after that mass shooters gravitate to lets say the M1 Garand which is .30 caliber so noticeably more powerful do you ban those too? 

2 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

WHAT????

I know.  We could certainly live without those and ice cream, donuts, cake, pie, and bred but then would it really be a life worth living. 

35 minutes ago, Oxx said:

Just looking at funds I've held for over 10 years (so there can be no accusation of post hoc selection),

Thank you.  I will look at those.  Now one further question.  Are those returns "net of fees"  They should be since fees are taken at the fund level but I am uncertain if they report gross returns or net of fees.  As previously mentioned the biggest impediment to beating any index is that index fund investing is so cheap and if a fund charges 1% a year for management over 30 years it has to outperform by 30% just to break even.  That is a mighty hill to climb.  

2 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Obviously there can be limits on what weapons are available to be owned by the public.

Ok of the these guns which one should be banned? 

2 minutes ago, PatOngo said:

Why is it so prevelent in America?

My opinion.  There is a cultural lack of respect for laws and authority in the USA.  I also think that the movies and video games play a part.  They glorify shooting scenes and the games give it the illusion of being a fantasy and not real. 

One thing is for sure, you have guns in other countries and they don't have the problem.  You have areas with strict gun laws with the highest rates of gun homicides and areas with loose gun laws with low rates of gun violence.  

12 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

True....then as implied it is a combination of (American) attitudes and availability of guns......so the solution should be two pronged......educate to change attitudes.......laws to remove guns

As to the former, American attitudes, we supposedly have tried to change attitudes about race for decades and passed numerous laws but somehow the news is still rampant about there being little change.  Removing guns.  We tried that with alcohol did not work.  We have a total ban on Fentanyl, Cocaine, Meth, Extasy etc.  Despite the "war on drugs" there is no shortage.   

I 'think" that if the USA was to adopt a much more severe punishment not just for firearms but for all law breaking that it would over time breed a greater respect for all laws.  Consider, it is already illegal to kill someone but obviously the mass shooter broke that law and didn't care about it.   Trying to ban firearms may do nothing more than making sure only criminals get guns by buying them black market with organized crime organizations reaping billions by either manufacturing them domestically or importing them from overseas.  

6 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

But America isn't (quite as) lawless and laws can be imposed....even if it takes 20 years it has got to be worth it.

Do I favor gun regulation, yes.  However the devil is always in the details.  Right now there is this push to ban AR-15 firearms which essentially is a .223 caliber semi-automatic rifle.  The Ruger 14 is the identical gun but it does not look military.  So do ban guns that "look scary"  

I certainly would favor only "responsible" individuals possessing firearms.  However, I truly don't know how the government can establish any sort of criteria that would allow only responsible people to have them.  The vast majority of mass shootings involve people who legally got firearms and they did not have a history of mental problems.  Those that did have symptoms like Columbine, the authorities were powerless to do anything to prohibit the two from getting guns just because "they were acting weird" 

I do think it is said to say that the American Culture does not have the respect that people in Asia and for that matter the EU has.  Unless you can somehow change the population and have them show proper respect for obeying the laws I think fiddling with more gun laws is like changing the deck chairs on the Titanic. 

Just now, Surelynot said:

So 20 school children in Sandyhook have to die because of selfish, gun obsessed morons demanding they can't live without their precious guns.....???

You are somehow making the LEAP that guns can somehow be totally eliminated.  It is totally illegal to have Fentanyl in the USA.  

 

2 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

America?

Unfortunately as an USA citizen I confess that the USA is not a safe country.  There are many causes for that but a good deal of it I think is attributable to the culture.  Instead of harshly punishing those who break the law, they coddle them.  That breeds an indifference to following the law knowing there are no real consequences.  

Using Thailand vs. Singapore.  In Thailand there is trash all over the streets.  In Singapore you can eat off the streets they are that clean.  Singapore strictly enforces a no littering policy and severely punishes those who break the law. 

As said, if the availability of guns were the problem then Switzerland would have a problem.  If availability of guns was the problem, Mexico where it is virtually impossible to legally own a gun would not have a problem. 

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Get rid of the guns.  Problem solved.  At least the ones typically used in mass shootings.  Easy.

Yes lets enact laws similar to Mexico.  Where it is extremely difficult to own a gun.  That will stop them. PS while you are banning guns, why don't you ban those drugs particularly Fentanyl that are so deadly. 





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Mexico#:~:text=Mexico has extremely restrictive laws,no person may possess them.

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

Do we need fertilizer....yes

Do we need guns...no

That is "according to you"  First there are people who enjoy target shooting, hunting, and are in dangerous areas that need self protection.  If guns are not needed, then police should not have guns. 

Second, you are making the ridiculous assertion that somehow guns can be banned and eliminated.  It that like the ban in Thailand on owning a gun?  How about the virtual impossibility of legally owning a gun in Mexico.  


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Mexico#:~:text=Mexico has extremely restrictive laws,no person may possess them.
 

2 minutes ago, PatOngo said:

No, it was Timothy Mc Veigh, and American veteran!

Correct and to my point, it was the despicable character of the person not the fertilizer.  The same is true of all mass killings.  The weapon is merely an instrument. 

3 minutes ago, Oxx said:

You carry on believing that.  And I'll carry on investing with fund managers who have a proven track record of consistently beating the index, year after year after year.

Two things.  First show me " which managers consistently beat the index.  Second, I did not say it was impossible.  I said it is difficult with only 11% being able to do so.  Also the term "beat" is abstract.  Beat by 1% beat by 10%.  Did the investor have a lower or higher volatility during those years.  In other words to achieve those superior returns did the investor increasingly have a greater volatility.  Don't know but again, the stats show only 11% of fund managers can do it.  So that on its face shows it is not impossible but it is difficult.  I would suggest that picking the manager that will beat the market going forward is not that easy and if it was, 89% of the money invested in funds that don't beat the market would not happen. 

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I wonder where you got that tired old NRA talking point. 

I am not a member of the NRA However you have a policeman with a firearm and a criminal with a firearm.  Why would you run to one for assistance and run from the other one if it was not for the difference in the character of the two not the fact that both had a firearm. 

Just now, Surelynot said:

555.......and the prize for the single most stupid comment made this year goes to .................

Yes pointing to the implement, whether that is a gun, knife,  a bomb, etc.  used to cause death as the culprit is the most stupid comment made this year. 

12 hours ago, Oxx said:

Doesn't it occur to you that this is meaningless? Fund managers change.  Few are still in place after 20 years.  They get old, they get wealthy, they retire.

 

Look for fund managers who have a track record of outperformance and stick with them - at least until they stop outperforming.  You'll end up a lot richer than if you stick with the mediocre performance of index trackers.

Yes they do.  That is the point.  The index is always the index while the fund changes characteristics and fund managers.  

Stick with the "better" fund manager until they stop outperforming.  If I could 'time" that I would only pick individual stocks that only go up or alternatively only own stocks until they go up.  Picking a fund manager that has consistently beat the index is looking backwards in history and making the assumption that the manager going forward will continue to beat it.   That is like buying GE in 2009 because its performance caused it to grow to the worlds largest company and then assume that it would continue to grow for the next decade. 

The point still is only 11% of stock market funds net of fees beat the index.  

1 hour ago, Oxx said:

You wrote "Here are the average cost for actively managed funds"

 

The best fund managers will outperform significantly over the mid- to long-term.

 

Yes but you misinterpreted the meaning of that.  That is the 'AVERAGE COST for all actively managed Equity Funds as contrasted to Index funds which is termed  "passive" investing.  It showed that 89% of actively managed stock funds failed to beat their respective index over a 20 year period.  Again, can a fund beat the index over 1 year of course, over 5 years less likely, over 40 years extremely difficult.  The index does capture both the winners and losers.  The actively managed fund must pick a greater number of winners.  That number has to be large enough to offset the fees they are charging.  at 1% per year which each year is cumulative.  That fund needs to beat the index by only 1% to offset its fee.  Over 40 years it needs to beat the index by 40% to just break even. 

Now with only 11% of the funds actually doing it the vast majority of investors receive returns substantially less than the index.  The other phenomena that happens is when a fund shows repeatedly great performance it receives substantial inflows of new cash.  That manager then is hard pressed to find enough "new" great stocks to purchase and you tend to get "style drift" as the manager is forced to go beyond their original investing discipline to put the money to work. 

The biggest detriment to index funds as I see it is that the S&P 500 is market cap weighted.  That means that the the index is really not as diversified as its name might suggest.  The larger the company's market cap becomes the greater percentage it becomes as part of the S&P 500 it becomes.  

One way or another, as stated, I worked for one of the largest commercial banks handling major retirement plans for companies including Ford, Coke, American Airlines etc.  Our studies show it is extremely difficult over time to earn the investment management charge differential between index funds and their respective benchmarks.  

 

 Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon and Facebook — now account for 17.5% of the S&P 500.

I guess you must have some data that Forbes does not.  
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnjennings/2020/09/23/beating-the-market-is-simple-but-not-easy/?sh=5c1c6a157b6a

On 3/21/2021 at 12:38 PM, Oxx said:

This is a lie perpetuated by Vanguard.  A lie perpetuated by misleading comparisons (e.g. comparing an index fund against the average of actively managed funds in a sector when

Show me where it is a lie?  Yes in any one year actively managed funds can beat the index.  However over long spans of time, it is difficult to beat the index because of the cost of managing the fund. 

Here are the average cost for actively managed funds no load.  So with a large cap fund it is .865 meaning over 10 years it is 8.65% over 20 years 17.3% and over 30 years 25.95% That would be compared to 4/10%, 8/10% and 12/10% over the same periods.  So over 30 years the fund would have to perform in excess of 25% better than the S&P just to earn its fee.  Not an easy task.  And remember that is "the average fund" and most funds don't beat the index. 

https://www.abc4.com/border-report-tour/cartels-telling-migrants-border-will-be-open-when-biden-takes-over-texas-democrat-says/

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/biden-immigration-policies-cause-predictable-border-crisis-why-didn-t-ncna1260992

https://www.cbs17.com/news/national-news/biden-to-prioritize-legal-status-for-millions-of-immigrants-2/










 

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

so he had no open border policy. But repubs said he did. And they keep lying about it making things worse than they need to be.

 

Hows the wall trump promised would fix all?

How many links do you need to show Biden did endorse an open border policy.  Was 4 not enough for you? 

  https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/450797-all-candidates-raise-hands-on-giving-health-care-to-undocumented-immigrants


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56031481


In terms of Biden and for that matter the Democrats not being for open borders, maybe you can explain why the all endorsed Health Care for illegals if they didn't intend for them to be here in the USA or did you "infer' that they meant they were going to send a fleet of U.S. Navy Hospital ships south of the border. 


Regarding the wall, it was never an end all just like ICE can not stop it all but cancelling it is like pulling the alarms out of the bank.  It is sending a message that its time to cross illegally again.