* 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 > http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=FSMKX shows 0.19% and $480. > > > 0.10% FSTMX > > http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=FSTMX shows 0.25% and $579.
Your information is out of date. If you had bothered to read the prospectus or even done a news search, you would have seen that these fund lowered their expenses last year. > Institutional funds mean the investment is only available to > institutions with millions of dollars to invest unlike the funds above > which are available to any individual with thousands of dollars to > invest. Actually a proper comparison in regard to expense ratios > might be a fund with a $50 minimum investment, not these You really need to learn how to read. Institutional funds are exactly the right comparison if you don't allow each individual to change their own investment accounts. > You are comparing apples and cow patties. It beat the index. This > has nothing to do with what the expense ratio is. And you are completely clueless. Why do you pretend like you know what you are talking about? Of COURSE the performance AFTER EXPENSES has to do with the expense ratio. Only a fool would suggest that the quantity X - Y does not depend on Y. If you bothered to look at the performance of S&P500 index funds before opening your mouth, you would see that the higher the expenses, the worse the performance. This is obvious. With index funds, the higher the expense ratio, the more it lags the index it is supposed to track. With VIIIX, Gus Sauter skill, combined with a very low expense ratio, allows VIIIX to slightly beat the index, making the expense ratio a slight bonus instead of an expense. > The future SS deficit for the next 75 years is somewhere between 0 and > $4 trillion dollars depending on what assumptions you use and how you > measure. So you know better than Ph.D. economists Gokhale and Smetters who I previously referenced who quote the figure as above $7 trillion? Thank goodness for you to point this out to us. > You are incorrect, sir, that $2 trillion is simply actualizing > implicit obligations. It does nothing of the kind. If you keep acting like you know what you are talking about, maybe you will convince yourself. In the real world, yes, the $2 trillion is a simple accounting change. Social Security has implicit obligations to pay a stream of cash in the future that has a present value equal to D. If we partially switch to private accounts and reduce the benefits for the people who opt in, then Social Securities implicit obligations go down by P, so the implicit obligation is then D - P. And the government must officially borrow P in order to finance the pay-as-you-go current benefit recipients. So the total obligation after partial privatization is (D - P) + P = D. The same as it is now. No change. That should be simple enough that even a chimp could understand. You know, there are books written on this stuff. I referenced one of them previously. It is not hard to understand. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
