From: Norman Wells 
Newsgroups: misc.invest.stocks uk.finance misc.invest.mutual-funds
Subject: Re: Why Managed Funds are Bad for your Wealth
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:56:39 +0100
Bytes: 3400

In message <1182876961.735434.178450@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, 
Flasherly  writes

>The 23% that do actively beat indexes can be followed for better or
>equal performance derived from corresponding indexes, in turn, derived
>from risk tolerance;- similarly, managed funds consistently ranked
>below indexes can be followed and evaluated for profit loss over
>risks, if any, were they then assimilated into indexes.
>Diversification is good;- Implicit to such good is a means whence
>optimal diversity is derived, through trading;- Therefore, a
>consequence follows, that stagnation occurs in trading indexes, or
>active positions, whatsoever, which must be bad.  The practical
>implication is known, that as investors, we do in fact periodically
>shift balances, actively within a window given our goodly
>prospectuses;- Passively, the same means occurs as often as indexes
>are accorded such strategy to account diversity, if balance shifts are
>accounted as existing.  We also can safely assume that most of all
>investors do shift their investment monies, as structural conventions
>and investment plans, which in time, personify individual bent biases
>for predispositions actively engaged in decision processes and
>considerations, in best relating to market conditions.  The trouble
>with proposing an argument of a sweeping nature, indexes wholly
>inculcate, is beside a very nature ambiguity implicates across
>diversity.  Decisions can't be simply, widely encompassed for any
>single direction, as if a magical lodestone were bestowed to point the
>way into unbounded indexed profits;- sufficiency in active positions,
>indeed, would throw a proverbial monkey wrench into any foreseen
>predilection for indexes solely to ascertain -- least while diversity
>is encountered across disparate indexes, and by what natures deference
>assume to surmount such a distinction. Pedantic, perhaps, but yet no
>less significant for illustrations moving contrary to a reversion in
>means. . .  .

Er, ... is this the load of psychobabbling nonsense I think it is, or 
does it conceivably mean something?  If it does, I wonder if any can 
explain to me what.

Preferably in English.

-- 
Norman Wells
NG