Portfolio composition

[SBQ]

Interesting article
Long term consequences
https://www.investopedia.com/how-ind...ral&yptr=yahoo

Nothing interesting about it and it's complete hogwash. Article didn't explain the risk of having 3 major funds owning 50% of the market; the risk is a market sell off can easily be manipulated by having few big players that determine the direction of the market (and that's what Jack Bogel was worried that too few big players can have too much manipulation of the market). But it has nothing to do with competition of the individual shares they hold, if the fundamentals hold well, so will the stocks and thus investment returns.

Something to think about if you really want to use an adviser or an investment manager or some personal investment broker:

https://www.quantumamc.com/mailer/20...ep16/Money.pdf
(Link originally from WSJ but requires silly subscription registration to view it wholly)

Basically he says the S&P500 won and the managed funds didn't over the 10 year time frame. Why? because of management fees, something many Kiwi Saver funds are guilty of. Think you can find a good broker in NZ that is that savvy enough to consistently beat the market? They're only riding on luck. The consultant's only interest is to extract fees from their clients, plain and simple.

And to think he was lucky on that bet, he's willing to offer it again:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/03/afte...dex-funds.html

In Buffet's 2017 Annual meeting he also described to his shareholders on the problem between active investing (the "Hyperactives) vs Passive investing. He says by "default" the passive investor gets a whole market share of the US economy (or the S&P500). Whlie the hyperactives are just only trying to guess which stocks (that operate under the US economy model) would do better than the other. So in relation to that article about lack of competitiveness ; by default the S&P500 pool of stocks already hold a majority portion of American stocks, you don't need to question about their competitiveness.