QUOTE(xuzen @ Aug 14 2012, 09:49 PM)
The operative word is the "IF". If the Fund manager return an alpha greater than benchmark fine and dandy to me as well.
However, the operative word is can the Fund manager
consistently return an alpha greater than its benchmark? If yes, can its risk be lower than that of the benchmark consistently?
It was this question that prompted John Bogle the fund manager to set up this ultra low cost fund that utilizes passive investing.
Also, if you have read A random walk down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel, the author also come to the same conclusion.
I also have another book All About Index Fund by Richard Ferri in my personal library which also advocate low cost index fund for investor.
On a parting note, I agree that low AER is not the only parameter for choosing a fund, but it does play a part. For me, it plays a big part in choosing a fund. Why the heck you think I become an agent if not to reduce the cost of investment.
Also, by being CUTA, I have access to off-shore funds where the AER is much lower and zero sales charge.
I am first and foremost an investor, hence I think like an investor, not as an agent.
Xuzen.
(1) There are no "IF"s as far as I can see in your question: "How does 0.1% annual management fee sound to you? Still want to pay 1.5% AMF? ".
(2) Random walks by who? Alpha what? I don't care about random walks by whoever. I don't care about costs either. I care about PROFITS to me. If you really need to know, I can dig up all sorts of funds with very low costs and LOSSES.
If you care too much about random walks, and about managements fees, and about all sorts of ratios without even understand what a simple figure, ie PROFIT mean, you are just barking up the wrong tree.
This post has been edited by howszat: Aug 14 2012, 10:05 PM