Mackenzie burned by Bernie Madoff (made off with your money)

[Burninator]

Here is another good article about it.

There are few areas of functioning where skepticism is more important than how one invests one’s life savings. Yet intelligent and educated people, some of them naïve about finance and others quite knowledgeable, have been ruined by schemes that turned out to be highly dubious and quite often fraudulent. The most dramatic example of this in American history is the recent announcement that Bernard Madoff, a highly-regarded hedge fund manager and a former president of NASDAQ, has for several years been running a very sophisticated Ponzi scheme which by his own admission has defrauded wealthy investors, charities and other funds, of at least 50 billion dollars.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-12-23.html#feature

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Madoff needs to go to prison and be mixed in with the dangerous and scary criminals. His punishment should be daily fear of rape and assault.

It's an outrage that someone who has robbed mostly decent people from $50 Billion is on house arrest in his comfy Upper Eastside NYC penthouse while a blue collar guy who mugs someone for $50 would wait in jail until his trial.

This guy needs to be in jail until his trial and assuming he's convicted deserves to serve time until death in a normal jail, hopefully not some high corporate country club jail.

[MoneyGuy]

Unfortunately another reason to avoid mutual funds....

Yeah, that's smart. That's like saying a defenceman who grew up in Manitoba makes a bad pass that ends up in his own goal so you'll never have another defenceman from Manitoba. What about Cundill Value, which has returned 10.3% since inception (since 1967)? It's also a Mackenzie fund, by the way. You don't know how much due dilgence is done by fund managers, and it's a lot. Not everything can be predicted.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Yeah, that's smart. That's like saying a defenceman who grew up in Manitoba makes a bad pass that ends up in his own goal so you'll never have another defenceman from Manitoba. What about Cundill Value, which has returned 10.3% since inception (since 1967)? It's also a Mackenzie fund, by the way. You don't know how much due dilgence is done by fund managers, and it's a lot. Not everything can be predicted.

I think the point you are missing is that due dilegence or not, why is a large instituion like MacKenzie investing 20% with one fund/company. Lack of diversification is not due dilegence in my book. It's being greedy and not looking out for the fund holders. Most large mutual funds have maybe up to 6-7% of their holdings in one company at most. I understand that Madoff's fund is a hedge fund but that's bad management to have that much exposure to one fund/company.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by pepper24

I think the point you are missing is that due dilegence or not, why is a large instituion like MacKenzie investing 20% with one fund/company. Lack of diversification is not due dilegence in my book. It's being greedy and not looking out for the fund holders. Most large mutual funds have maybe up to 6-7% of their holdings in one company at most. I understand that Madoff's fund is a hedge fund but that's bad management to have that much exposure to one fund/company.

Hedge funds are high risk. That's what they do. I know people who have put six figures and a majority of their investment dollars into one stock. Anyone who buys a hedge fund has to understand this. And what about investor due diligence?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Hedge funds are high risk. That's what they do. I know people who have put six figures and a majority of their investment dollars into one stock. Anyone who buys a hedge fund has to understand this. And what about investor due diligence?

Couldn't have said this any better!

Also if all of the due diligence is done and the investment still seems sound why not put 20% of the investment there? The money wasn't sitting in one investment with Madoff either; there was diversity on that end (at least in theory!).

[macker]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Yeah, that's smart. That's like saying a defenceman who grew up in Manitoba makes a bad pass that ends up in his own goal so you'll never have another defenceman from Manitoba. What about Cundill Value, which has returned 10.3% since inception (since 1967)? It's also a Mackenzie fund, by the way. You don't know how much due dilgence is done by fund managers, and it's a lot. Not everything can be predicted.

The hockey analogy doesn't cut it here. We are talking about the biggest financial scam in history ($50 B) and a supposed leading mutual fund company in Canada is caught putting 20% of a funds holdings with the scam artist. If you deal with these companies I guess I can understand why you are soo quick to defend them. Mutual funds are an asset class in decline, just look at the redemption numbers for October 2008 so I am not the only one that thinks that mutual funds offer a poor return for your money. Do you realize that in Canada we pay the highest MER's in the world and that over 70% of the mutual funds can't even beat the Index. Things need to change if the mutual fund industry in Canada is to survive as a legitimate asset class. If scams like this don't cause people to investigate the system then they are bound to repeat themselves. I think that what Mackenzie was caught doing here is far worse than anything Steve Smith ever did If you don't have time to manage your own portfolio why not buy index funds and pay MER's less than 1% instead of investing in mutual funds that charge 3% MER's you will outperform 70% of the mutal funds out there anyways. Hedge funds are even worse than mutual funds as you pay your 3% MER and then there is a management fee that can sometimes be up to 20% of the fund performance on top of that. Sorry, I can do better than this and you know in your heart of hearts that there are better options out there for anyone who wants to take the time to educate themselves on what is available for their money. You might say "yeah that's smart" but I can guarantee that I am outperforming all of the mtutual funds that you are recommending in my own portfolio that I manage myself and I will never get screwed over by any Ponzi Scheme as I am doing my own DD and do not rely on the Mackenzies of the world to do this for me As a side note I used to invest with mutual funds and they caused me to educate myself years back when I had over $8,000 in a Global Technology fund with AIM Trimark that soon became $1,500. That's all it took for me And you are right, I didn't know anything about diversifying my portfolio at the time but neither did my supposed investment advisor who was no Phil Housely either. The attached link will show you that avoiding Manitoba defenseman is not a bad idea http://www.hockey-reference.com/friv...vince=MB&state=

[Slava]

^ Well I can't sit and let a perfectly good thread stay on topic so let me de-bunk some of the many myths that you put forward here macker:

A) Picking October 2008 to show a declining asset class is laughable at best. You picked the worst time in decades to assess when an investment has run its course...what kind of due diligence are you advocating here exactly? How did the index funds you are advocating hold up? A survey by Russell investments actually shows that over 60% of managed funds beat the index through this period.

B) The 70% can't beat the index comment is completely misleading. If you were to factor in every fund available that might be the number (I think that its a number you pulled from a hat, but I'm happy to work with that). The fact is that if you take out all of the funds that are index hugging funds than the number that beat the index is an incredible amount higher. In Canada in particular the index hugging mandates will match the index and then take their fees off that figure, so naturally they underperform. If you have an advisor worth their wage though you will not buy into these mandates, and can and do beat the indexes regularly. I can show you a large number of funds that beat the index handily after fees, and took a lot less risk to do so....yes that is after the latest 2008 meltdown. Tell me that isn't worth paying more, to get more in your pocket?

C) The whole MER debate makes me laugh in a lot of ways. Holding other investments is not cheaper in a lot of instances. There are buying and selling costs which oftentimes cost as much or more than an MER...only you get no advice to go with that. As I noted above you can beat the index without question, and take less risk at the same time. Secondly though (and clearly I have a bias here!) you are paying for advice within that MER. You might not think that advice is worth anything, but if you don't want to manage your own money you will see the value here quite quickly. To get top notch tax, investment, risk management and general financial advice does cost you something. I have no problem explaining how I get paid to my clients, and they all know that I make money off them. In my experience price is only relevant when value is in question...which sounds like the problem with your last advisor?

D) I'm guessing that you are leaning towards ETF's now with their lower fees. Well there are issues with the ETF as well. In an ever expanding ETF universe, with more offerings on the shelf ever month ow long until you need advice on what to invest in? How much are you going to pay on a flat rate to get that advice? Would you want you money back in a time like October 2008 again? If you are selecting actively managed portfolios here, why do you assume that the ETF provider can beat the market where the mutual fund cannot? I would suggest to you that the ETF has a place in most portfolios...but if the average person hardly understands a mutual fund than adding the exchange traded element is far and away too much complexity for the average guy. If you agree with that statement, just remember how we ended up in October 2008 in the first place.

Anyway, that is my rant for now. I just think that hindsight makes this entire case look a lot clearer and its easy to say "I can't believe they fell for it" looking back. Just don't forget how many people sunk money into Bre-X, Enron, Worldcom, Nortel, etc.

[OzSome]

Crap, I have investement with MacKenzie and so as the company that I work for. We were actually talking about stopping our RRSP contributions through them but our friend from MacKenzie keeps telling us, it is the best time to invest on the long term RRSP through them. By the way, the RRSP we got from MacKenzie, they usually invest the money on Mutual Funds.
I will have to print out that article and show it to our friend from MacKenzie. See how he reacts.

[Slava]

^ I wouldn't worry too much in all honesty. This was one particular fund that got the loss. It is a great time to be investing for the long term, no question about that.

Of course I have no idea what you are investing in, but unless you have everything in this one fund than you won't even see a loss (as a result of this incident!).

[macker]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ Well I can't sit and let a perfectly good thread stay on topic so let me de-bunk some of the many myths that you put forward here macker:

A) Picking October 2008 to show a declining asset class is laughable at best. You picked the worst time in decades to assess when an investment has run its course...what kind of due diligence are you advocating here exactly? How did the index funds you are advocating hold up? A survey by Russell investments actually shows that over 60% of managed funds beat the index through this period.

It is what it is. The redemptions back up the trend that people are losing faith and trust in the mutual fund/hedge fund industry.
http://www.morningstar.ca/globalhome...D1117200814361

B) The 70% can't beat the index comment is completely misleading. If you were to factor in every fund available that might be the number (I think that its a number you pulled from a hat, but I'm happy to work with that). The fact is that if you take out all of the funds that are index hugging funds than the number that beat the index is an incredible amount higher. In Canada in particular the index hugging mandates will match the index and then take their fees off that figure, so naturally they underperform. If you have an advisor worth their wage though you will not buy into these mandates, and can and do beat the indexes regularly. I can show you a large number of funds that beat the index handily after fees, and took a lot less risk to do so....yes that is after the latest 2008 meltdown. Tell me that isn't worth paying more, to get more in your pocket?

It is not misleading at all. I have read a lot of William Bersteins work in "The Four Pillars of Investing" and "The Inteligent Asset Allocator" Check it out sometime and you will see where I am comming from. This guy is a straight shooter and all the facts are in his book. The below link might not be as credible but it also confirms some of the same points that I am making.
http://randsco.com/index.php/2007/02..._canadian_mers

Also see : http://www.efficientfrontier.com/

C) The whole MER debate makes me laugh in a lot of ways. Holding other investments is not cheaper in a lot of instances. There are buying and selling costs which oftentimes cost as much or more than an MER...only you get no advice to go with that. As I noted above you can beat the index without question, and take less risk at the same time. Secondly though (and clearly I have a bias here!) you are paying for advice within that MER. You might not think that advice is worth anything, but if you don't want to manage your own money you will see the value here quite quickly. To get top notch tax, investment, risk management and general financial advice does cost you something. I have no problem explaining how I get paid to my clients, and they all know that I make money off them. In my experience price is only relevant when value is in question...which sounds like the problem with your last advisor?

So why do Canadians pay the highest MER's in the world? What value added advice justifys the MER's. After 2008 people are not going to continue to let this slide or at least I hope they will expect more going forward!

D) I'm guessing that you are leaning towards ETF's now with their lower fees. Well there are issues with the ETF as well. In an ever expanding ETF universe, with more offerings on the shelf ever month ow long until you need advice on what to invest in? How much are you going to pay on a flat rate to get that advice? Would you want you money back in a time like October 2008 again? If you are selecting actively managed portfolios here, why do you assume that the ETF provider can beat the market where the mutual fund cannot? I would suggest to you that the ETF has a place in most portfolios...but if the average person hardly understands a mutual fund than adding the exchange traded element is far and away too much complexity for the average guy. If you agree with that statement, just remember how we ended up in October 2008 in the first place.

Here is a game changer for the average "lazy investor" who doesn't want to pay the high MER's that currently face most Canadian investors and doesn't have time to manage their own money. http://www.cnxmarketlink.com/en/rele.../06/c5532.html
A low fee, actively managed ETF. What is not to like? Tell me why you would pay up and extra 3% to have a mutal fund that isn't even guaranteed to beat the index. In the market environment we are currently in that 3% could be huge for the average investor. I know that ETF's are hurting the financial industry in that they are simple, effective, low cost, transparent and nobody really makes any commission off of them but they are here to stay. The average investor should be able to determine that if you are bullish on Gold you but GLD, or XGD, If you like the Emerging markets buy EEM, or if you think that Water's time has come PHO etc. etc. It is not hard to figure out and they offer the same basket type approach that mut funds do without the MER's. As I said before just read William Berstein as he outlines how to build an efficient portfolio by using ETF's or Index funds. I love one of his quotes about being properly diversified where he says it is like going to the horse races and betting on all the horses and this is the way it should be as diversifying your investments is the only free lunch. For a basic starting point on making investing easy : http://www.canadianbusiness.com/my_m...05_152254_1452

Anyway, that is my rant for now. I just think that hindsight makes this entire case look a lot clearer and its easy to say "I can't believe they fell for it" looking back. Just don't forget how many people sunk money into Bre-X, Enron, Worldcom, Nortel, etc.

We can all learn something from the mistakes noted above. To quote Berstein yet again....There is nothing new under the sun just history that we have not yet read about.

[Slava]

I've read a lot of Bernstein, Jason Zweig and John Bogle. They are all advocating index funds for one reason or another. A lot of that rationale is basically saying that you can't predict the market, so you are better off to own everything and not have to worry about whether certain companies/sectors underperform or overperform. But the evidence that they are using is all American...the statistics they use are all US based. It is simply not a fair comparison to whats gone on in Canada.

The 3% MER is just not a fair comparison. Maybe if everything is going through Investors Group you will see 3% on every fund, but this is not the norm, and I would suggest not the average in Canada. In 2007 that figure was 2.6% for full Canadian Equity funds. Like I pointed out before though if these funds are beating the index after fees than I fail to see the rationale for thinking that the fees are too high? I suppose if you could beat the index for free than you would make money, alas nothing is free!

That ETF changes nothing. You want indexes because you don't think that managed money can beat the index, right? Why would this ETF beat the market where the others are not able to do so? I also want to know how people are ever going to know which ETF to buy in the case where they should invest there. Its easy to say buy gold, buy the emerging markets, or buy water (as you pointed out). But if you think that everyone just "knows" where to put their money you've clearly over-estimated peoples financial knowledge.

I love the quotes from Bernstein as well. But in all of your links you failed to remind me of how the index performed through October, and how the mutual funds your deriding did in the same period. Paying a higher MER to lose less money during that period is obviously worthwhile. If you don't think so, that is fine, but I can tell you that a lot of people could sleep well at night knowing that their retirement might be saved by a measly couple of points.

[Slava]

As a quick follow-up, I disregarded the randsco article on purpose. I have no idea who wrote that, or what their angle is.

[macker]

Originally Posted by Slava

As a quick follow-up, I disregarded the randsco article on purpose. I have no idea who wrote that, or what their angle is.

http://randsco.com/index.php/2007/02..._canadian_mers

It doesn't really matter who authored the above linked article as the studies that they are referencing are all legitimate and I also saw the same article on how Canadians pay the highest MER's in the world in an Investment Exective magazine. Focus on the studies and not so much the author. You can't make this stuff up!!!

[macker]

Originally Posted by Slava

I've read a lot of Bernstein, Jason Zweig and John Bogle. They are all advocating index funds for one reason or another. A lot of that rationale is basically saying that you can't predict the market, so you are better off to own everything and not have to worry about whether certain companies/sectors underperform or overperform. But the evidence that they are using is all American...the statistics they use are all US based. It is simply not a fair comparison to whats gone on in Canada.

Come on now......How is the efficient frontier any different in the US than it is in Canada??? Berstein makes investing easy for anyone and I was able to translate the American speak into Canadiana...


The 3% MER is just not a fair comparison. Maybe if everything is going through Investors Group you will see 3% on every fund, but this is not the norm, and I would suggest not the average in Canada. In 2007 that figure was 2.6% for full Canadian Equity funds. Like I pointed out before though if these funds are beating the index after fees than I fail to see the rationale for thinking that the fees are too high? I suppose if you could beat the index for free than you would make money, alas nothing is free!

If you had to invest in mut funds in Canada you would be best served by either RBC where they have relatively low MER's compared to the rest or CI Investments where they have the best managers in the industry such as Gerald Coleman & Eric Bushnell. It's not all bad with mutual funds. You could make a case where you could also look at Colemans top 10 holdings and make your own long term mutual fund without the MER.....You would however have to know for yourself when to sell out of the positions....We have lost sight of the original topic and that is that Mackenzie really dropped the ball and that makes the industry look bad.

That ETF changes nothing. You want indexes because you don't think that managed money can beat the index, right? Why would this ETF beat the market where the others are not able to do so? I also want to know how people are ever going to know which ETF to buy in the case where they should invest there. Its easy to say buy gold, buy the emerging markets, or buy water (as you pointed out). But if you think that everyone just "knows" where to put their money you've clearly over-estimated peoples financial knowledge.

I love the quotes from Bernstein as well. But in all of your links you failed to remind me of how the index performed through October, and how the mutual funds your deriding did in the same period. Paying a higher MER to lose less money during that period is obviously worthwhile. If you don't think so, that is fine, but I can tell you that a lot of people could sleep well at night knowing that their retirement might be saved by a measly couple of points.

It's more than a few measly points....put that into numbers:

If you invested $10,000 today for 20 years and both the ETF and the average mutual fund received the historical TSX average of 10.7%, you would have $76,375 with the ETF, or $44,581 with the average mutual fund.

A difference of $31,794!!


Can you back up some of what you are claiming with links from third party sources. You have mentioned a few things that haven't been backed up. Show me which funds beat the Index in October. I like to look at 3 to 5 year periods but would be interested to see this regardless. We will remain off topic but I would find it interesting regardless!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by macker

http://randsco.com/index.php/2007/02..._canadian_mers

It doesn't really matter who authored the above linked article as the studies that they are referencing are all legitimate and I also saw the same article on how Canadians pay the highest MER's in the world in an Investment Exective magazine. Focus on the studies and not so much the author. You can't make this stuff up!!!

Have you forgotten what this thread is about?

Look, I read Jonathan Chevreaux everyday in the Post and the guy constantly rails against the fees that investors pay. He talks about how people can do this on their own and that the ETF is the destruction of the mutual fund industy as we know it. Then he publishes a column that says a mere 11% of the population even know what an ETF is. Next he published a column saying basically he shouldn't have listened to all of the buy and hold proponents because he could've missed this drop in the market.

Well, (time for me to be a condescending jerk!), I told my clients a year ago to get out, and move into cash, or very conservative holdings. (Not every client, as those that were moving in as the market went down this past year were doing the right thing). Did any ETF provide you with that option? Will they in the future? Would that move have saved you money regardless of whether you were in an index or managed fund? (Of course). Of course some of my clients have lost money through all of this; but every client has been contacted through this in one form or another...does your ETF do that, or do you just guess that you are still invested in the right areas?

I do get commission based on my clients investing with me, and when my clients make more money in the markets, I get paid more. If my clients were to all lose 1/2 of their money, my wage gets cut right along with their losses. How much fairer a system can you have? In my opinion this is the only way to operate in this industry. I sit on the same side of the table as my clients; its clearly in my best interest for them to make money. Obviously I can't run my business for nothing (and I would assume that none of my clients want me to go out of business). To me, there is a pretty clear value add here. People come to me with a binder or envelope full of investment statements, insurance policies, etc. and have no idea what to do with it. I take that information, make it make some sense and get them on track, not just investment wise, but financially in general. I educate people on why they ought to invest and where to do so. I save people thousands of dollars a year in taxes, and save them many sleepless nights because they know that they are being looked after capably and effectively. If that costs an extra one percent a year from their return I think that is completely worthwhile.

I'm not trying to convince you to buy any mutual funds, or to really do anything. If you think that there is no added value to professional advice, that is obviously your perogative. In that case I hope that the internet and watercooler conversations tell you everything you need to know. I personally don't believe that you can do everything for yourself, and there are some things that a professional is better equipped to deal with. Let me assure you that I'm pretty good with a pair of scissors...so good that I'm currently teaching my daughter the skill. I'm not stupid enough to cut my own hair though....I leave that to someone who really knows what they are doing!

[macker]

Originally Posted by Slava

Have you forgotten what this thread is about?

Look, I read Jonathan Chevreaux everyday in the Post and the guy constantly rails against the fees that investors pay. He talks about how people can do this on their own and that the ETF is the destruction of the mutual fund industy as we know it. Then he publishes a column that says a mere 11% of the population even know what an ETF is. Next he published a column saying basically he shouldn't have listened to all of the buy and hold proponents because he could've missed this drop in the market.

Well, (time for me to be a condescending jerk!), I told my clients a year ago to get out, and move into cash, or very conservative holdings. (Not every client, as those that were moving in as the market went down this past year were doing the right thing). Did any ETF provide you with that option? Will they in the future? Would that move have saved you money regardless of whether you were in an index or managed fund? (Of course). Of course some of my clients have lost money through all of this; but every client has been contacted through this in one form or another...does your ETF do that, or do you just guess that you are still invested in the right areas?

I do get commission based on my clients investing with me, and when my clients make more money in the markets, I get paid more. If my clients were to all lose 1/2 of their money, my wage gets cut right along with their losses. How much fairer a system can you have? In my opinion this is the only way to operate in this industry. I sit on the same side of the table as my clients; its clearly in my best interest for them to make money. Obviously I can't run my business for nothing (and I would assume that none of my clients want me to go out of business). To me, there is a pretty clear value add here. People come to me with a binder or envelope full of investment statements, insurance policies, etc. and have no idea what to do with it. I take that information, make it make some sense and get them on track, not just investment wise, but financially in general. I educate people on why they ought to invest and where to do so. I save people thousands of dollars a year in taxes, and save them many sleepless nights because they know that they are being looked after capably and effectively. If that costs an extra one percent a year from their return I think that is completely worthwhile.

I'm not trying to convince you to buy any mutual funds, or to really do anything. If you think that there is no added value to professional advice, that is obviously your perogative. In that case I hope that the internet and watercooler conversations tell you everything you need to know. I personally don't believe that you can do everything for yourself, and there are some things that a professional is better equipped to deal with. Let me assure you that I'm pretty good with a pair of scissors...so good that I'm currently teaching my daughter the skill. I'm not stupid enough to cut my own hair though....I leave that to someone who really knows what they are doing!

Fair enough. If you were able to make the call to cash a year ago there is not much I can say to that. I can't confirm it but I will take you at your word. If you can predict the market like this you truely are worth the MER!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by macker

[/b]

It's more than a few measly points....put that into numbers:

If you invested $10,000 today for 20 years and both the ETF and the average mutual fund received the historical TSX average of 10.7%, you would have $76,375 with the ETF, or $44,581 with the average mutual fund.

A difference of $31,794!!


Can you back up some of what you are claiming with links from third party sources. You have mentioned a few things that haven't been backed up. Show me which funds beat the Index in October. I like to look at 3 to 5 year periods but would be interested to see this regardless. We will remain off topic but I would find it interesting regardless!

OK, fair enough. I can't get the graphs I generated to paste here for some reason. I would be more than happy to email this stuff to you if you want to PM me an address. (Don't worry I'm not going to spam you to death!!)

CI Harbour, Dynamic Power Balanced, Ethical Dividend,v Fidelity Canadian Asset Allocation are all ahead of the TSX Return over the past 3-5 years. The numbers actually look better for the mutual funds than they do for the index as a whole over the last three years as opposed to the last five years.

Risk-wise, these funds are lower risk than the index as a whole, and yet the returns are higher. I really wish I could cut and paste the charts....I wasted enough time putting them together for a stupid internet discussion!

[macker]

Originally Posted by Slava

OK, fair enough. I can't get the graphs I generated to paste here for some reason. I would be more than happy to email this stuff to you if you want to PM me an address. (Don't worry I'm not going to spam you to death!!)

CI Harbour, Dynamic Power Balanced, Ethical Dividend,v Fidelity Canadian Asset Allocation are all ahead of the TSX Return over the past 3-5 years. The numbers actually look better for the mutual funds than they do for the index as a whole over the last three years as opposed to the last five years.

Risk-wise, these funds are lower risk than the index as a whole, and yet the returns are higher. I really wish I could cut and paste the charts....I wasted enough time putting them together for a stupid internet discussion!

No worries....www.morningstar.ca or www.fundlibrary.com can confirm this. I know that passive investing usually underperforms in down markets. Gerald Coleman usually hordes his cash so this is how he is able to outperform in down markets. He is one of the all time best managers in Canada for sure. I read an article on him recently and he is almost fully invested again. I tend to listen to the best of breed fund managers and use it to form my own opinions for my own portfolio. There has never been an easier time to manage your own portfolio in my opinion. All the information is out there and you just need to go and get it. It's working for me so I guess I need to start cutting my own hair

[Shazam]

Ouch.

An ETF in the index at, say 50% of investments, with the other half in whatever bond fund you can find with the lowest MER, will do quite well versus the index itself, and has significantly less risk than the stock market.

Rebalance every year.

Not to offend Slava, but he's only worth his MER if he consistently outperforms the market. Just because he called this one event doesn't mean much. I called the dotcom crash, but that hardly means anything either.

There are very, very few funds that have outperformed the market over the past twenty years.