美股智囊

编者前言：

下面这篇文章是由《穷爸爸，富爸爸》这本书的作者罗伯特·清崎撰写，文章揭露了一个残酷的现实：绝大多数共同基金（又称互惠基金）的回报率都低于股票市场的同期收益。导致这个局面的的原因有很多，但最主要的是基金管理和销售公司变得越来越贪婪，盘剥的费用越来越多。文中的数据显示，在过去20年中，如果投资股市，你可以累计获得11倍的收益，但购买基金只有不到3倍的增值，也就是说73%的回报都被管理和销售共同基金的相关人士“吃掉”了。但是即便如此，每年仍然有无数的人购买基金。其中很多人是出于无奈，例如工作单位提供的养老基金，或者政府支持的教育基金，很多都是自己出一部分钱，企业或政府添一部分钱。面对“不要白不要”的钱，以及销售员的鼓动宣传，或者是坐在银行经理面前，看着墙上挂满的证书学历，也就只能由他作主了。

当然，还有很多人购买基金是因为一种错误的观念：炒股是做短线，投资只能买基金。好像那些基金经理都是专家，肯定比自己做得好。可是你知道吗？普通老百姓只需要买一支像SPY这样的股票型指数基金，放上几年不动，你就可以轻松地胜过那些拥有各种光荣学历的基金经理。就算退一步讲，你对股票望而生畏，非要买基金不可，那也要选择管理费最低的、开放型的指数基金（Index Fund）。不要理睬那些天花乱坠的什么策略啊、模型啊。概念越复杂、越难懂的投资产品，其猫腻就越多。记住，简单的才是最美的，这是生活的真谛，也是投资的真理。

编者：三维预测网站 - www.3DFN.com


Mutual Funds Get Greedy

by Robert Kiyosaki, Published on Yahoo Finance, February 5, 2007


I was on a radio program not long ago. My host was a financial planner who was upset about the book Donald Trump and I wrote, "Why We Want You to Be Rich." In the book, Donald and I don't speak highly of mutual funds.

Rather than listening to what I had to say, the interviewer wanted to argue. His position was that Donald and I weren't experts on mutual funds, and had no right to criticize. I agreed that we weren't experts on mutual funds, and reminded the host that Donald I never claimed to be.

An On-Air Dustup

Instead, we were quoting John C. Bogle, a true expert and leader in the mutual fund industry whom I've mentioned before. For those who may not know, John Bogle is the founder of the Vanguard family of funds.

Rather than consider my position -- that Donald and I were not experts, but John Bogle was -- the on-air financial planner defensively said, "John Bogle loves mutual funds."

Again agreeing with him, I replied, "Bogle does love mutual funds. That's why he's upset, because mutual fund investors are being ripped off by mutual fund managers."

Our on-air argument continued for approximately five more minutes. I asked the host if he'd read Bogle's book, "The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism." He admitted that he hadn't, and had no future plans to do so. His position was that I had misinterpreted the book and was taking Bogle's statements out of context.

Bogle on Funds

There's a saying that goes, "Minds are like parachutes. They only work when open." Since the radio-show host's mind was closed, and so was mine, I asked to end the interview early. Rather than continue arguing about a book the listening audience couldn't see and the host didn't plan on reading, I decided to make my case here, with Yahoo! Finance readers.

Essentially, John Bogle's position in "The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism" is that investors -- what he calls the true owners of major corporations and mutual funds -- are being robbed blind by corporation and mutual fund company managers. He refers to it as the shift from owner's capitalism to manager's capitalism.

Most of us have heard about the investors (and true owners) of Enron, WorldCom, and other corporations being fleeced by the likes of Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, and Bernie Ebbers. Bogle contends that the same type of theft practiced by these men is going on in the mutual fund industry. He doesn't point to just a few bad apples, either -- he fingers the industry as a whole.

To quote Bogle, "Simply put, fund managers have arrogated to themselves an excessive share of the financial markets' returns, and left fund investors with too small a share." Elaborating on that point, Bogle writes, "With today's dividend yields on stocks at about 1.8 percent, a typical equity funds expense ratio consumes fully 80 percent of a fund's income."

As I put it on the air that day, "Eighty percent is a bit greedy."

A Money Vacuum

To illustrate his point, Bogle writes that "while $10,000 invested in the stock market [in 1985] earned a profit of $109,800 [over 20 years], the average mutual fund investor earned a profit of just $29,700. Together, the cost penalty, the timing penalty, and the selection penalty consumed an amazing 73 percent of the profit available simply by buying and holding the stock market itself, leaving the average fund stockholder with a mere 27 percent of the total."

In other words, if investors had invested in the stock market back in 1985, they would have made $109,800 dollars over 20 years. That's including the ups and downs of the market. During the same period, investors who put the same $10,000 in mutual funds made only $29,700.

That's what prompted me to tell the radio interviewer, "That's why mutual funds suck. Not only do they suck 80 percent of the dividends, in come cases they suck another 73 percent of other gains from investors."

I believe my comment was bleeped.

Caveat Emptor

Reading "The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism," you begin to understand Bogle's motivation for writing it. As the radio host accurately told me, "John Bogle loves mutual funds." If that financial planner had read the book, he'd understand that that's precisely why Bogle is so frustrated.

Mutual funds are a beautifully conceived investment vehicle designed to provide long-term wealth for passive investors. Sadly, over the years, fund managers have been both legally and illegally ripping off investors who count on their investments to provide a college education for their kids or retirement security for themselves. It seems that mutual fund managers, like the managers of our major corporations, have sold their souls for fast money, and have left the investors behind.

I agree with Bogle's call for more governance from fund managers. If the rip-off continues, it'll be harder to raise money from investors to fund our entrepreneurs and businesses. Many U.S. investors are already investing overseas rather than at home.

Yet regardless of whether or not our capital market leaders tighten the rules and fund managers regain their capitalistic souls, I remind you of a timeless bit of investing wisdom: "Let the buyer beware." Ultimately, it's your money, so be very careful about what you invest in and who you invest with.

freeperson

说得对

nidie

第一个教训，是要有一个正确的心态，千万不能认为，自己什么工课都不做，就只依靠投资顾问，除非你不在乎这些钱。投资顾问应该只是你的一部分的资源。你可以向他咨询，但是你一定要有自主权。他所推荐的基金或者股票，只能是你最后做的投资的一个参考。

有人可能会问，既然我什么都要管，那要投资顾问做什么。这是一个很好的问题。要解答这个问题就必须先提一下投资顾问的类别。其实，各大金融机构都有类似投资顾问一类的部门，所做的也就是帮助客户管理投资。这一类的投资顾问，一般都收费。但是，要想成为他们的客户，你必须要有一定的资金，大部分人是无法享受他们的服务的。大部分人所能够接触到的投资顾问，多半是不收费的。那他的钱从那赚？从你购买的基金的所属基金公司那儿拿钱。一般是0。5%-1%。而且投资顾问每拉一个新客户，基金公司通常会给投资顾问一笔一次性奖励。在这种体制下，投资顾问的回报并不完全和他替你管理资金的回报成正比。投资顾问所能选择的基金就一定会受到基金公司的限制。而基金的好坏除了业绩之外，还要看基金经理的commission，基金的sales type。有的基金是没有任何种sales fee，这种叫no load。有的是买的时候要付sales fee。有的，sales fee是在卖的时候才付。一般不收费的投资顾问，是绝不会向你推荐no load种类的基金，因为他拿不到任何报酬，即使基金回报很好。投资顾问一般选择的是back load，commission也不会太便宜的。因为这种基金给予投资顾问的奖励或回报会稍高。投资顾问还可能更倾向于，向你推销新基金，同样的理由。而基金公司，也会为了推销他的产品，而针对某些产品给予更多的优惠给投资顾问。当然，最后这些花费都会加到你我购买者的头上。

所以在这种情况下，投资顾问并不是，也不可能全心全意为投资者服务。拿我的经历来说，我是在三次margin call以及投资缩水一半之后，才开始做我早应该在投资之前就做的工课。於是才明白不同种类的sales fee，才知道还有无sales fee，和无commission的基金。在经过一些搜寻之后，向投资顾问提出，买一只我看好的no load，低commission的基金。投资顾问百般躲闪，提出许多反对理由，但就是不提最本质的理由。最后，投资顾问说，你要一定要买，可以自己去银行买，不必通过他。听了他这么说，我就问他，是不是我只能买他推荐的基金，而不能买我自己选择的基金。如果不告诉我他不愿买的真实理由，那这是我和他最后一次见面。在这种情况下，投资顾问吞吞吐吐，半遮半掩地说出了我早已知道的真相。也就是在这种情况下，我才知道我的这个投资顾问是如此不可信。

当然现在，也有一些投资顾问推出收费理财服务。一般来说，收费投资顾问可能会比非收费投资顾问有更多的活动空间，给投资人提供更客观的信息，但并不能保证他一定会。投资者仍然要小心，因为并没有任何法律阻止基金公司支付奖金及回扣给收费投资顾问。我个人认为，投资理财行业需要有法律或行业规定，杜绝基金公司支付奖金及回扣给投资顾问，投资理财必须是有偿服务，投资人才能更得到应享有的服务，投资人才能信任投资顾问。

圆明园

Post by Frank640
  如果你自己的积蓄直接投资股市, 有时侯连入门费都不够. 就象小杂货店没法从大厂家直接进货一样, 因为规模太小, 谈判成本太高, 根本不值得玩.

一点意见只供参考.

买股票跟进货不同.  散户跟集团基本上是平等的(价钱上).
入门费, 很多地方两,三千块钱. 不能说很高.
基金还是要买的, 股票也是要炒的.

KIYOSAKI的观点过分. 他卖书前好象没挣着什么钱, 他的话不能当真.

圆明园

除了IPO外, 我觉得散户买起来更容易, 三十,五百的股票好找, 一百万就费劲了.
MSFT想买YAHOO得给人家61%的PREMIUM.

OLIVERCA

Post by Frank640
"下面这篇文章是由《穷爸爸，富爸爸》这本书的作者罗伯特·清崎撰写，文章揭露了一个残酷的现实：绝大多数共同基金（又称互惠基金）的回报率都低于股票市场的同期收益。"这里面有一个基本的比较常识, 共同基金（又称互惠基金）的回报率是和谁的股票市场的同期收益相比较? 如果知道一点基本常识就会明白, 股票市场的主要投资者是共同基金, 而不是个人散户. 一个基金投资股票市场的收益率是9%, 扣除管理费和利润后回报客户的受益是6%, 你不能因为6%比9%低, 就说投资共同基金不核算. 如果你自己的积蓄直接投资股市, 有时侯连入门费都不够. 就象小杂货店没法从大厂家直接进货一样, 因为规模太小, 谈判成本太高, 根本不值得玩.

一点意见只供参考.

透彻！！