Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

There are several potential mutual fund problems, but the ones most consumers are exposed to arise from institutional and private "investment advisors". There is no legal protection from banks externalizing toxic assets acquired though risky decisions onto customers, and or ridiculous ballooning management fees siphoning off actual profit. The other issues are mostly from various end-runs around acceptable market rules and practices.

In general, most amateur holds permute well below 3 to 4 months on average. Note the old joke: "Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered"... was never funny for those providing cash capital to gamblers.

Most people assume they are luckier than average... and most of Las Vegas was also built on losers money.

Have a great day, =3




You’re mixing up adviser fees (ETFs have lower fees than mutual funds; neither is directly related to adviser fees), toxic assets, CMOs, balloon mortgages and possibly management fees and carried interest. These are related concepts inasmuch as they’re all financial terms.


You seem confused by my frustration with tools towing the company line rather than providing reliable investment advice.

Personally, I prefer retaining the option to sue people that pull stunts. But to each their own... =3


> I prefer retaining the option to sue people that pull stunts

If that's an option for you, sure. I work in finance and retain FINRA arbitration as a customer. When I'm signing with clients, I do not like to include it--I have a strong advantage in court and don't want a venue that's biased against me as a professional.

All of this is totally irrelevant to ETFs, mutual funds and CMOs because those are distributed funds whose terms aren't negotiable after offering. (If you're worrying about suing the guy selling you ETFs, you're doing something wrong. Probably overtrading.)


[flagged]


> having a robust legal position is still rather important

Zero competent securities lawyers will argue waiving FINRA arbitration universally puts one into a more robust legal position.

For most Americans, it waives significant consumer safeguards and opens up realms of litigation tactics that are barred by industry rules but not law.


I'd believe this in very specific contexts but I can't find any reliable explanation of what those might be. Can you point me to anything worthwhile to read on the topic?

I am fairly certain that consumer and employment pre-dispute arbitration agreements are strongly negative but I haven't learned enough about FINRA/securities arbitration to have a strong opinion.


In general, forced arbitration is not an effective legal posture for investors, and a common instrument applied to suckers.

Sociopath structured parasitism always poses a liability around treasure. Handle or hire your own due diligence solutions... Seriously, don't assume either of our nonsense applies in your country. =3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNSHZG9blQQ




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: