Note that "Flat Fee" managed accounts are quite different and may actually be separately and personally managed.

3)Portfolio Window Dressing: Every quarter, every year, we hear about the adjustments that portfolio managers are making as they attempt to look smart to their largest clients. Now in a discipline (Investing) that they all officially recognize as a long-term commitment to some specific strategy or plan, why do the Masters of the Universe spend so much time manipulating their short-term performance numbers? And why is this considered business as usual instead of common fraud?

4)Asset Allocation Mutual Funds: I look at Asset Allocation a bit differently than most professionals seem to and I regulate and monitor a portfolio's structure using the cost basis of securities rather than their Market Value. But how, logically, can a one-size-fits-all Mutual Fund be the right mix for all investors? Here's a definition found on the Internet: "A mutual fund that rotates among stocks, bonds, and money market securities to maximize return on investment and minimize risk". And a definition of Asset Allocation from a similar source: "The practice of distributing a certain percentage of a portfolio between different types of investment assets, such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, cash, real estate, options, etc. By diversifying an individual's asset base, one hopes to create a favorable risk/reward ratio for a portfolio".

In reality, Asset Allocation is a structure-planning tool that determines what percentage of an Investment Portfolio is to be invested for Growth in Equity securities and what percentage is to be invested for income production. The proper allocation is a function of the investor's age, marital status, financial position, employment status, retirement plans, expenditure needs, risk tolerance, family responsibilities, etc. Diversification occurs within the two (just two) asset classes. One size fits all... who's kidding whom?

5) Corporate Executive Compensation: I strongly believe that everyone has the right to become filthy rich, legally of course. I respect anyone who gets there honestly because their success creates jobs, opportunities, wealth, and a higher standard of living for everyone. But, once they sell shares of their successful enterprises to the public, they have a responsibility to share future profits and growth. Obscene executive suite compensation (right down to the chauffeured limousines) is simply stealing from shareholders.

With every new Scandal, a voracious Media and a hypocritical Congress exacerbate the fear of shocked investors and call for more regulation of the very entities whose success, freedom, viability, and competitiveness they should be nurturing. Ironically, politicians are always the most outspoken critics... probably because of their familiarity with cover-ups and improprieties. But no one ever questions the integrity of the Financial Institutions that invent, produce, price, and promote products and services that do far more long-term harm than the few (albeit serious and sensational) incidents of corporate wrong doing.

Four of the five candidates for this year's Blockbuster Scandal (B S) Award were created on Wall Street. The fifth is ignored by it. Which one bothers you most?

Page 2 of 2 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 | Next