* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If you read the top of the page you saw it was as of 12/31/04 a
horribly 2 weeks ago.
Gary, this is very simple. You are quoting results that include expenses
from a time period when the expenses had not been lowered. In the time
period since the
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Unlike them I am not paid shills for the American Enterprise Institute
being paid to persuade people that privatized federal savings
To clarify we were discussing:
Dr. Kent Smetters (Associate Professor at Wharton, former
economist for the
On Jan 14, 2005, at 6:29 AM, Erik Reuter wrote:
Anyway, they are obviously qualified to have an expert opinion. You may
have partisan disagreements with them, but dismissing them as paid
shills is hardly persuasive, unless you can show some credentials that
qualify you to give an expert opinion.
I
Apropos an earlier discussion...
On Jan 12, 2005, at 3:17 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
[...]
You really need to learn how to read.
[...]
And you are completely clueless. Why do you pretend like you know what
you are talking about?
[...]
If you bothered to look at the performance of SP500 index funds
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:17:22 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
answering portions of my post
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
---
Expense TICKER
Ratio
===
0.09%ETSPX
Sorry - http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=ETSPX shows the expense
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:43:34 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Perhaps Erik can point me to these mutual funds with management fees
less than 0.18% that an individual investor can participate in?
Sure. Here are three:
---
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
---
Expense TICKER
Ratio
===
0.09%ETSPX
Sorry - http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=ETSPX shows the expense ratio
is 0.40% and a 10 year expense of $982 per $10,000 invested.
0.10%FSMKX
[quick aside]
On Jan 12, 2005, at 3:17 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
You know, there are books written on this stuff. I referenced one of
them previously. It is not hard to understand.
You really left yourself open on that one, you know.
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:34:29 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
About $100 billion a year would be freed up for stocks, bonds and
other investments under a tentative plan President Bush has floated
to fix the Social Security retirement
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Perhaps Erik can point me to these mutual funds with management fees
less than 0.18% that an individual investor can participate in?
Sure. Here are three:
---
Expense TICKER
Ratio
===
0.09%ETSPX
0.10%FSMKX
0.10%
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 21:35:03 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The route to real pensions reform
Jan 6th 2005
From The Economist print edition
http://www.economist.com/finance/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3535838
Progressive indexing of retirement benefits by wage level, argues
* Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
About $100 billion a year would be freed up for stocks, bonds and
other investments under a tentative plan President Bush has floated
to fix the Social Security retirement system by creating private
investment accounts.
The fees paid to brokers and
Erik Reuter wrote:
The annual fee for an index fund is about 0.1%. So, 0.1% of $100B is
$100M. In actuality, it will be lower, since such a large account
will
be able to get economies of scale. Very large pension funds
currently
can get 0.05%.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but you are
* Robert G. Seeberger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but you are saying that 100B is a
large account and will make less money?
Not less money. Lower percentage rate. And $100B isn't the biggest
account by itself, but $100B a year for several years would soon become
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 17:58:42 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 04:25:39PM -0600, Gary Denton wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 06:32:24 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 05:24:30AM -0600, Gary Denton wrote:
BTW, this
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 22:59:12 -0600 (CST), Julia Thompson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Erik Reuter wrote:
The route to real pensions reform
Jan 6th 2005
From The Economist print edition
http://www.economist.com/finance/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3535838
most
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 05:24:30AM -0600, Gary Denton wrote:
BTW, this proposal affects workers under 55. Erik's and other's
comments that no one who has contributed to SS will be effected is
total BS as even the briefest look at the numbers or or logic shows.
I was referring to the plans
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 06:32:24 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 05:24:30AM -0600, Gary Denton wrote:
BTW, this proposal affects workers under 55. Erik's and other's
comments that no one who has contributed to SS will be effected is
total BS as even the
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 04:25:39PM -0600, Gary Denton wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 06:32:24 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 05:24:30AM -0600, Gary Denton wrote:
BTW, this proposal affects workers under 55. Erik's and other's
comments that no one who
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Erik Reuter wrote:
The route to real pensions reform
Jan 6th 2005
From The Economist print edition
http://www.economist.com/finance/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3535838
most snipped
The third and best answer is progressive indexing. This means the
continuation of
20 matches
Mail list logo
