>> Regarding DIRECT mode, as lawyers say, anyone who argues his own case has a >> fool for a lawyer.
>Wow. Such hubris. As though managing investments in stocks "should be >something left to the professionals" :-) You must say this to Buffet, Pabrai, >Jhunjhunwala and others, just to get a reaction :-) True. Managing investment in stocks should be left to the professionals. And I would consider those names to be professionals. >> There is a substantial difference in performance between the best and the >> worst funds. >This seems to fly in the face of your own logic that one should always buy a >professionally managed fund :-) No it doesn't. Point is, it is not enough just to buy any professionally managed fund. It is important to buy a fund managed by the best fund manager you can pick. The difference between the best and worst, is quite substantial. >> By the same principle, "never touch it until retirement" is okay if you >> don't have the time, will and skill or don't have access to a good advisor. >> Monitoring and maintaining the quality of your portfolio is essential. >Again, seems to fly in the face of the "pay some active professional investor >to manage your money" logic :-) Not really. Some funds stand the test of time well. Others drift in performance, for a number of reasons, including change in fund manager. A good financial advisor will, among other things, pick good funds for you, and maintain the quality of the portfolio, by weeding out funds when they underperform. >> Sorry folks, for suddenly waking up and bellowing, but this topic I seem to >> have acquired a little knowledge about. >As they say about "a little knowledge" :-) :-) Good one, Mahesh. At the risk of appearing immodest, what I meant by a little knowledge was that we have been financial planners for the last ten years, work with about 3000 customers of whom about a 1000 pay us an annual fee for advice.
