ETFs Vs. Mutual Funds: A Surprising Analysis [View article]
Yanni - there is likely to be no significant difference since they both almost exactly replicate the return of the same index, although Fidelity's fund is slightly cheaper. But if you invest a min. of 10K with the Vanguard fund's Admiral Class, it is cheaper even than Fidelity's fund.
Of course, there is never a guarantee of making 8 to 10% a year. Results vary from year to year from high to low.
ETFs Vs. Mutual Funds: A Surprising Analysis [View article]
Hmmm ... I think reading an investment article is a little like looking at a inkblot - people are going to interpret what they see in different ways.
In my article, the chart near the bottom, which I call a summary, has two main variables - expense ratio and fund performance as compared to an index. The two main examples discussed are Fidelity Contra and Pimco Total Return, which in both cases I suggest that an investor own because they have been able to outperform and more than make up for their higher expenses. Therefore, if you read my article and come to the conclusion that I am focusing too "much on cost only," that is your prerogative. But an objective reading would suggest that I am focusing on both cost and finding funds that are worth their extra cost.
I don't want to seem like I think I am the either the greatest investor or the greatest writer, but it seems to me that it is a common problem that US investors often just won't listen or remain open to input when someone gives them a different opinion; they just keep to their prior beliefs, it seems, no matter what is presented to them; this I believe is to their own detriment.
ETFs Vs. Mutual Funds: A Surprising Analysis [View article]
Comments on others' comments -
MadMilo - the surprise is that it is not always all about expenses as many of the ETF adherents try to claim. There are now possibilities out there with extremely low expenses, fees, and taxes.
As far as good returns are concerned, I have also seen a lot of ETF adherents bashing mutual funds for bad performance especially over the last half decade. Well, this relates to comments above to Snoopy1 -one can't expect any category of stock investments to do well, including ETFs, if almost all the overall market is performing badly. I suppose an exception might be bear market funds that bet on the market falling - but they have actually done among the worst of all over the period.
Anthony Grossi - with mutual funds, one has the option of reinvesting divs and cap gains (it is not automatic). According to the prospectus for some of the Vanguard ETFs, it depends on the brokerage where Vang. ETFs whether reinvestment is available. (The Vang. brokerage apparently will reinvest dividends, but not cap gains.) So, one would need to check with any brokerage they planned to hold an ETF in to see whether reinvestment is or isn't possible.
Jerbear - Perhaps you should read my article more carefully. I pointed out the average cost of all mutual funds and suggested that the lower cost ones and often ETFs were a better way to go, when possible. If an employer offers a highly expensive selection of funds in a 401(k), employees need to complain and try to get more reasonable funds; of course, they may have the option of not participating in the plan, or perhaps just keeping the investment in a money market fund that can't possibily have the fees you describe. Yes, let the buyer beware, but explaining how to get the lowest expenses and searching for outperforming funds in spite of expenses was the purpose of my article, nothing more; vote with your feet by getting out of the high cost funds.
ETFs Vs. Mutual Funds: A Surprising Analysis [View article]
I agree with you in terms of what "should have been possible." I don't want to argue about this but all I'm pointing out is due to the apparent fear factor, most investors, fund and hedge fund mgrs have not been able to excel "in reality" mainly because no matter what stocks one picked, there was little of the expected advantage of one set of picks over another. Bill Miller is a great example of one with a legendary record as are many others. It all about the math of highly correlated stock movements. Even for myself I had an excellent record of outperforming in the first half of the decade, but I haven't been able to beat the S&P 500 for a number of years now.
you will see that over the last 5 yrs, there has been hardly any variation in the average returns betw. different categories of US stock funds. While obviously there still have been a small no. of mgrs. that have beaten the trend, the huge majority of all the thousands of funds have all been "clumped together" in returns.
It was not this way before the fin. crisis - then, there were big differences in performance depending on which particular categories a mgr. chose, assuming he/she had such flexibility in his/her charter to pick large vs small, growth vs value, sectors, etc.
comparing the Vang. REIT fund with the ETF - virtually exact same performance.
To Lucas Krupinski - It seems you are saying the same thing as I state in my article which is: Low fees are great, but there are some managed funds that seem to consistently beat the indices by a large enough amt. to make them better to own. One of them is PTTRX which has been far more profitable than a bond market index. So I guess I disagree with David Swensen - I have owned PTTRX for many, many years, and didn't have to do a ton of research to find it. And, incidentally, I personally pay more attention to Gross's advice on bonds than stocks; after all, he is a bond fund mgr. and is competing against stocks.
To Snoopy1 - I agree that one can't be sure if a mgr. will continue a good track record, and most can't, and that index funds usually outperform most of the time. But, I don't think it follows that there aren't a small no. mgrs. that are exceptional and that it is impossible to find them. I guess Buffett is an example.
As to your 2nd comment, I personally have identified 10 funds I think will outperform over the next 5 years - see
A problem over the last 5 yrs. is that due to the financial crisis, almost all types of stocks have performed similarly. Therefore, managers have found it extremely hard to beat an index. But that is not always the case. Between say 2002 and 2007, it was somewhat easier to find the type of stocks that would outperform.
To andres17 - agree with your comments. But, of course, when you pay an expense ratio, it's not just to profit a manager. You are getting a service - someone, or a whole team, to research and provide presumed expertise on the best investments. I admire people who can do without a manager and their expense, but this is not easy work since you are "competing" with all the professional investors out there who work full time studying stocks. I believe it is harder for an "ordinary" person to beat the markets than an experienced and well trained mgr.
To ogd - yes, thank you for providing this info which I did not mention. My article could have been longer and more detailed but I wanted to keep it to a reasonable length. I believe there is more info on what you are describing on Vanguard's website and they take the bid-ask spread into account where they compare ETFs' to funds' costs.
To jconger- I do not think most index funds have the cash cushions although many managed funds do. I do not know much about CEF (closed end funds) but I believe they have some issues of their own.
To WKMA - I, personally, would rather invest my money with professional managers than to try out my own pet approaches, for the most part. So, I can't really comment on your approach.
The dialogue is thought provoking and I appreciate both of your inputs. Here are a few more points I would like to make:
1. Obviously, people have different investing approaches, and if you are comfortable with yours, or Hussman's, I am not going to try to tell you my approach is inherently better. I originally invested in Hussman's fund because he obviously was very knowledgeable and he seemed to be a good choice for doing well even in a down market environment which I also foresaw during those mid-decade years. But the fact that even though he appeared correct in his warnings during the 07-09 bear market, he couldn't even outperform since then seems to show that his method is weakish. That is, if half the time you are right and half wrong, the net may be close to 0, which has been true in his case.
2. Eric, I forgot to answer your earlier question about which I would invest in if I had to go to prison for a decade, an ETF or a hedged fund? My answer is neither if you are talking about an either or choice. I have my investments in many different types of funds, including in Hussman's (for now) and that's the key for me. I wouldnt trust any one manager or style of investing as an all or none bet. (I'm very glad I only have a little bit in HSGFX because it is perhaps the only fund I own that I have lost money on even though I have owned it for almost 7 years.)
3. My strategy is not at all trend following. It advocates more heavily allocating in those asset categories that are among the worst performing areas. While this is not a guarantee of good performance ahead, it helps to avoid and even suggests selling categories that are going along the way that makes most investors get onboard. I do agree that most investors are very bad at getting in and out in a productive way. And trying and succeeding in any investment strategy is one of the hardest things for anyone to do successfully.
4. I have recently recommended that investors pick from among what I would consider some (but not all) of the best funds I have come across - the list includes VFINX and bond funds:
Each of these non-VFINX funds has outperformed VFINX by a wide amt. over the last 10 years and most have had the same ongoing mgr. Given these proven performances, why would I stick with Hussman whose track record over the period has been much poorer?
To marketdaddy, see my comments below yours for current Buys. Incidentally, my website and subscriptions are entirely free; I make no profit when people sign up. Believe it or not, this is done entirely as a hobby.
untrusting investor, I agree with your comments. My article's approach is just one. I might point out that even if Hussman is right about 4% average returns going forward, the question remains can one expect to do even that in either cash or bonds? My guess is that even 4% will be better than returns from the latter two classes.
ericmcarter, thanks for pointing out that since HSGFX's inception, he IS ahead of VFINX. I was unaware of that point, since I tend to look at 5 and 10 yr. performance charts. I am not sure of what to make of that though since I myself, a non-professional investor, calculate I am about 2% or so a year ahead of VFINX over the same period which is also about 20%. So this would mean that with all his expertise, he hasn't really done better than someone without all his historical and economic prowess. This might suggest that either I'm pretty good at what I have been doing, or his facts and figures don't really add that much to what a strategically minded invested could have done on their own. And realistically, how many investors are willing to wait 12 years with a manager whose big selling point is that he has returned about 1.25% per year over the last 12 yrs, even if it has been better than many other investors' performances over that period? I can't prove it, but I think he tends to be far too pessimistic about the market's prospects. If his forecasts are taken literally, not to mention his past performance, I don't see why one would invest either in his fund, or VFINX at all. And it is unfortunate, from my perspective, that his fund did so well in the first bear market; it appeared as though he could do well when others weren't, but this hasn't held up.
I am very familiar with Hussman's work and am even an investor in HSGFX. Unfortunately, although he is apparently a great student of stock market history and economic data, he has been unable to translate that knowledge into actual performance via HSGFX, even after 10 years of trying. And over the last 3 yrs., he trails VFINX by over 80% cumulative! I, like many others I would suspect, have lost confidence that his fund is worthwhile. I think this is one of the problems for people who rely too solely, in my opinion, on economic data.
I tend to agree that there may be lower than usual returns for the overall market over the next 5 or 10 yrs. But this is on a buy and hold basis when big gains can be offset by big downturns. So if one gradually sells once stocks become quite overvalued (not really now), they may be able to do better than the say 4% or so he is predicting for the average return. Further, his appraisal is for the market as a whole. There usually are asset categories within the stock market that will do better than the market over a number of years. By recognizing and being in the better performing asset categories, one may be able to do better than the average for the entire market.
So, in response to Tack, the areas that my category ratings show are the most promising Holds over the next several year are Large Value and Large Blend. If one gets into more specialized areas, one might Buy Financials, Real Estate funds, and even Japan funds. These Buys are definitely contrarian choices mainly for aggressive investors.
Yes, in terms of their 5 yr. returns, but, more recently, over the last year, they have actually been showing momentum in the direction that is now being predicted to continue. You can take a look at these articles for more detail if interested -
Yes, there has been a slow to moderate business cycle recovery, although my earliest Buy, for Small-Cap Growth, preceded that, and has been so good in percentage terms that it wouldn't appear to be a case of lifting all boats to the same degree.
Actually, the business cycle is likely one of the reasons I believe my signals work. Stocks, in general, are part of the business cycle and usually go up and then down over multi-year periods in a similar way the economy tends to move.
The period of 2001 was included in my work to create my category ratings. At that time, most asset categories and the economy was ending a long up cycle. But some asset categories were more overvalued than others and the ones that hadn't done that well during the 1995-2000 up-cycle were the ones that my method showed had the best chance of doing well going forward.
Asset categories have been moving with high correlations to each other over the last several years, as can be seen most dramatically in Table 1 of my article. But this is not typical. Usually, there are much bigger differences in how asset categories perform with some doing well and others more poorly - this is starting to be truer now as reflected somewhat in Table 2.
Determining Buy Signals for Long-Term Investors [View article]
Regarding the Seeking Alpha disclosure policy: I have reviewed the policy shown on the site "Terms of Use". There is no mention of mutual funds, and therefore, I don't think it applies to them.
It makes sense to try to limit people, who might be able to influence the movement of a stock, esp. a thinly traded one, through their articles. The policy prevents them from attempting to personally gain from any buying/selling that readers might do as a result of their article. But to assume that a writer such as myself could influence what happens to, say the S&P 500 Index or the whole Large Cap Growth category of funds, would be ludicrous, and I would think that the Seeking Alpha policy would agree.
Determining Buy Signals for Long-Term Investors [View article]
In response to Jake2: Sorry that some people cannot understand how research works. What I learned in many years of school is this: Research attempts to bring us closer to the truth, but it can never really prove it; it can also help to cast doubt on the truth of certain likely invalid propositions. Therefore, there is no "magic formula," only a hypothesis to be tested; as evidence is gathered over many trials, the argument would appear to be more convincing. So, whomever construes my research approach as an attempt to create a surefire certainty is misreading my intentions. It's merely to suggest that evidence may, and so far has, supported a very counterintuitive approach to investing. This approach, which other notable research has also supported, suggests (but does not prove) that investing in former poorer performing categories of funds usually leads to better results than investing in the best performing categories.
As far as your statement that the best way to make money on Wall Street is to make a profit by selling things to investors and taking a cut of the proceeds, you may be right to some extent. But your statement ignores the fact that many, many people who have gained some or a great deal of wealth in this country have done so through their own efforts attempting to understand the investment world enough so that they could do quite well in their personal investing. Another way that your statement, which apparently attempts to put me in the category of people profiting off of others, is dead wrong is that my website, newsletter, and contributions to other websites are totally free. I have no ads, no paid subscriptions, etc. In other words, I publish only because I find it an enjoyable thing for me to do, perhaps helping some people along the way. Perhaps you need to grow up/wake up a little; and it would help to check out the facts before you criticize.
ETFs Vs. Mutual Funds: A Surprising Analysis [View article]
Of course, there is never a guarantee of making 8 to 10% a year. Results vary from year to year from high to low.
ETFs Vs. Mutual Funds: A Surprising Analysis [View article]
at a inkblot - people are going to interpret what they see in different
ways.
In my article, the chart near the bottom, which I call a summary, has two main variables - expense ratio and fund performance as compared to an index. The two main examples discussed are Fidelity Contra and Pimco Total Return, which in both cases I suggest that an investor own because they have been able to outperform and more than make up for their higher
expenses. Therefore, if you read my article and come to the conclusion that I am focusing too "much on cost only," that is your prerogative. But an objective reading would suggest that I am focusing on both cost and finding funds that are worth their extra cost.
I don't want to seem like I think I am the either the greatest investor or the greatest writer, but it seems to me that it is a common problem that US investors often just won't listen or remain open to input when someone gives them a different opinion; they just keep to their prior beliefs, it seems, no matter what is presented to them;
this I believe is to their own detriment.
ETFs Vs. Mutual Funds: A Surprising Analysis [View article]
MadMilo - the surprise is that it is not always all about expenses as
many of the ETF adherents try to claim. There are now possibilities
out there with extremely low expenses, fees, and taxes.
As far as good returns are concerned, I have also seen a lot of
ETF adherents bashing mutual funds for bad performance especially over the last half decade. Well, this relates to comments above to Snoopy1 -one can't expect any category of stock investments to do well, including ETFs, if almost all the overall market is performing badly. I suppose an exception might be bear market funds that bet on the market falling - but they have actually done among the worst of all over the period.
Anthony Grossi - with mutual funds, one has the option of reinvesting
divs and cap gains (it is not automatic). According to the prospectus
for some of the Vanguard ETFs, it depends on the brokerage where Vang. ETFs whether reinvestment is available. (The Vang. brokerage apparently will reinvest dividends, but not cap gains.) So, one would need to check with any brokerage they planned to hold an ETF in to see whether reinvestment is or isn't possible.
Jerbear - Perhaps you should read my article more carefully. I pointed
out the average cost of all mutual funds and suggested that the lower
cost ones and often ETFs were a better way to go, when possible. If an employer offers a highly expensive selection of funds in a 401(k), employees need to complain and try to get more reasonable funds; of course, they may have the option of not participating in the plan, or perhaps just keeping the investment in a money market fund that can't possibily have the fees you describe. Yes, let the buyer beware, but explaining how to get the lowest expenses and searching for outperforming funds in spite of expenses was the purpose of my article, nothing more; vote with your feet by getting out of the high cost funds.
ETFs Vs. Mutual Funds: A Surprising Analysis [View article]
ETFs Vs. Mutual Funds: A Surprising Analysis [View article]
mainly because no matter what stocks one picked, there was little of the expected advantage of one set of picks over another. Bill Miller is a great example of one with a legendary record as are many others. It all about the math of highly correlated stock movements. Even for myself I had an excellent record of outperforming in the first half of the decade, but I haven't been able to beat the S&P 500 for a number of years now.
ETFs Vs. Mutual Funds: A Surprising Analysis [View article]
http://bit.ly/OI6j41
you will see that over the last 5 yrs, there has been hardly any
variation in the average returns betw. different categories of US stock funds. While obviously there still have been a small no. of mgrs. that have beaten the trend, the huge majority of all the thousands of funds have all been "clumped together" in returns.
It was not this way before the fin. crisis - then, there were big
differences in performance depending on which particular categories a mgr. chose, assuming he/she had such flexibility in his/her charter to pick large vs small, growth vs value, sectors, etc.
ETFs Vs. Mutual Funds: A Surprising Analysis [View article]
To jweissman - thank you for the comment. Don't think your
question is true - for ex., see
http://yhoo.it/Mkqjra
comparing the Vang. REIT fund with the ETF - virtually exact same
performance.
To Lucas Krupinski - It seems you are saying the same thing as I
state in my article which is: Low fees are great, but there are
some managed funds that seem to consistently beat the indices by
a large enough amt. to make them better to own. One of them is
PTTRX which has been far more profitable than a bond market index. So I guess I disagree with David Swensen - I have owned PTTRX for many, many years, and didn't have to do a ton of research to find it. And, incidentally, I personally pay more attention to Gross's advice on bonds than stocks; after all, he is a bond
fund mgr. and is competing against stocks.
To Snoopy1 - I agree that one can't be sure if a mgr. will continue
a good track record, and most can't, and that index funds usually
outperform most of the time. But, I don't think it follows that
there aren't a small no. mgrs. that are exceptional and that it
is impossible to find them. I guess Buffett is an example.
As to your 2nd comment, I personally have identified 10 funds
I think will outperform over the next 5 years - see
http://bit.ly/yYHfo7
A problem over the last 5 yrs. is that due to the financial crisis,
almost all types of stocks have performed similarly. Therefore, managers have found it extremely hard to beat an index. But that is not always the case. Between say 2002 and 2007, it was somewhat easier to find the type of stocks that would outperform.
To andres17 - agree with your comments. But, of course, when you
pay an expense ratio, it's not just to profit a manager. You are
getting a service - someone, or a whole team, to research and provide presumed expertise on the best investments. I admire people who can do without a manager and their expense, but this is not easy work since you are "competing" with all the professional investors out there who work full time studying stocks. I believe it is
harder for an "ordinary" person to beat the markets than an
experienced and well trained mgr.
To ogd - yes, thank you for providing this info which I did not mention. My article could have been longer and more detailed but I wanted to keep it to a reasonable length. I believe there is more info on what you are describing on Vanguard's website and they take the bid-ask spread into account where they compare ETFs' to funds' costs.
To jconger- I do not think most index funds have the cash cushions although many managed funds do. I do not know much about CEF (closed end funds) but I believe they have some issues of their own.
To WKMA - I, personally, would rather invest my money with professional managers than to try out my own pet approaches, for the most part. So, I can't really comment on your approach.
Empirical Buy Vs. Sell Signals Suggest Long-Term Gains Ahead [View article]
http://bit.ly/zGBon6
Empirical Buy Vs. Sell Signals Suggest Long-Term Gains Ahead [View article]
your inputs. Here are a few more points I would like to make:
1. Obviously, people have different investing approaches, and if you
are comfortable with yours, or Hussman's, I am not going to try to
tell you my approach is inherently better. I originally
invested in Hussman's fund because he obviously was very knowledgeable and he seemed to be a good choice for doing well even in a down market environment which I also foresaw during those mid-decade years. But the fact that even though he appeared
correct in his warnings during the 07-09 bear market, he couldn't
even outperform since then seems to show that his method is weakish. That is, if half the time you are right and half wrong, the net may be close to 0, which has been true in his case.
2. Eric, I forgot to answer your earlier question about which I would
invest in if I had to go to prison for a decade, an ETF or a hedged
fund? My answer is neither if you are talking about an either or choice. I have my investments in many different types of funds, including in Hussman's (for now) and that's the key for me. I wouldnt trust any one manager or style of investing as an all or none bet. (I'm very glad I only have a little bit in HSGFX because it is perhaps the only fund I own that I have lost money on even though I have owned it for almost 7 years.)
3. My strategy is not at all trend following. It advocates more heavily allocating in those asset categories that are among the worst performing areas. While this is not a guarantee of good performance ahead, it helps to avoid and even suggests selling categories that are going along the way that makes most
investors get onboard. I do agree that most investors are very
bad at getting in and out in a productive way. And trying and succeeding in any investment strategy is one of the hardest things for anyone to do successfully.
4. I have recently recommended that investors pick from among what I would consider some (but not all) of the best funds I have come across - the list includes VFINX and bond funds:
see http://bit.ly/yYHfo7.
Each of these non-VFINX funds has outperformed VFINX by a wide amt. over the last 10 years and most have had the same ongoing mgr. Given these proven performances, why would I stick with Hussman whose track record over the period has been much
poorer?
Empirical Buy Vs. Sell Signals Suggest Long-Term Gains Ahead [View article]
untrusting investor, I agree with your comments. My article's approach is just one. I might point out that even if Hussman is right about 4% average returns going forward, the question remains can one expect to do even that in either cash or bonds? My guess is that even 4% will be better than returns from the latter two classes.
ericmcarter, thanks for pointing out that since HSGFX's inception, he IS ahead of VFINX. I was unaware of that point, since I tend to look at 5 and 10 yr. performance charts. I am not sure of what to make of that though since I myself, a non-professional investor, calculate I am about 2% or so a year ahead of VFINX over the same period which is also about 20%. So this would mean that with all his expertise, he hasn't really done better than someone without all his historical and economic prowess. This might suggest that either I'm pretty good at what I have been doing, or his facts and figures don't really add that much to what a strategically minded invested could have done on their own. And realistically, how many investors are willing to wait 12 years with a manager whose big selling point is that he has returned about 1.25% per year over the last 12 yrs, even if it has been better than many other investors' performances over that period? I can't prove it, but I think he tends to be far too pessimistic about the market's prospects. If his forecasts are taken literally, not to mention his past performance, I don't see why one would invest either
in his fund, or VFINX at all. And it is unfortunate, from my perspective, that his fund did so well in the first bear market; it appeared as though he could do well when others weren't, but this hasn't held up.
Empirical Buy Vs. Sell Signals Suggest Long-Term Gains Ahead [View article]
I tend to agree that there may be lower than usual returns for the overall market over the next 5 or 10 yrs. But this is on a buy and hold basis when big gains can be offset by big downturns. So if one gradually sells once stocks become quite overvalued (not really now), they may be able to do better than the say 4% or so he is predicting for the average return. Further, his appraisal is for the market as a whole. There usually are asset categories within the stock market that will do better than the market over a number of years. By recognizing and being in the better performing asset categories, one may be able to do better than the average for the entire market.
So, in response to Tack, the areas that my category ratings show are the most promising Holds over the next several year are Large Value and Large Blend. If one gets into more specialized areas, one might Buy Financials, Real Estate funds, and even Japan funds. These Buys are definitely contrarian choices mainly for aggressive investors.
Empirical Buy Vs. Sell Signals Suggest Long-Term Gains Ahead [View article]
http://bit.ly/zGBon6
http://bit.ly/zXnDDq
Empirical Buy Vs. Sell Signals Suggest Long-Term Gains Ahead [View article]
Actually, the business cycle is likely one of the reasons I believe my signals work. Stocks, in general, are part of the business cycle and usually go up and then down over multi-year periods in a similar way the economy tends to move.
The period of 2001 was included in my work to create my category ratings. At that time, most asset categories and the economy was ending a long up cycle. But some asset categories were more overvalued than others and the ones that hadn't done that well during the 1995-2000 up-cycle were the ones that my method showed had the best chance of doing well going forward.
Asset categories have been moving with high correlations to each other over the last several years, as can be seen most dramatically in Table 1 of my article. But this is not typical. Usually, there are
much bigger differences in how asset categories perform with some doing well and others more poorly - this is starting to be truer now as reflected somewhat in Table 2.
Determining Buy Signals for Long-Term Investors [View article]
It makes sense to try to limit people, who might be able to influence
the movement of a stock, esp. a thinly traded one, through their articles. The policy prevents them from attempting to personally gain from any buying/selling that readers might do as a result of their article. But to assume that a writer such as myself could influence what happens to, say the S&P 500 Index or the whole Large Cap Growth category of funds, would be ludicrous, and
I would think that the Seeking Alpha policy would agree.
Determining Buy Signals for Long-Term Investors [View article]
As far as your statement that the best way to make money on Wall Street is to make a profit by selling things to investors and taking a cut of the proceeds, you may be right to some extent. But your statement ignores the fact that many, many people who have gained some or a great deal of wealth in this country have done so through their own efforts attempting to understand the investment world enough so that they could do quite well in their personal investing. Another way that your statement, which apparently attempts to put me in the category of people profiting off of others, is dead wrong is that my website, newsletter, and contributions to other websites are totally free. I have no ads, no paid subscriptions, etc. In other words, I publish only because I find it an enjoyable thing for me to do, perhaps helping some people along the way. Perhaps you need to grow up/wake up a little; and it would help to check out the facts before you criticize.