[quote=AllREIT][quote=FL Broker] Since UITs are broker-sold, you also don’t see them advertised or talked about in the media.  (Why should glowing articles be written about them in the do-it-yourself magazines if the DIYers can’t buy them and the sponsors won’t advertise in the magazine anyway?)  [/quote]

Even if you had just one UIT sponsor, it wouldn't preclude them from advertising.

The funds sponsors also advertise extensively for themselves and mutual funds in various "Money" type magazines.

[quote]In my view, UITs are becoming increasing popular among brokers not only because of the well-thought-out strategies that have allowed investors to way outperform the major averages with substantially higher Sharpe ratios, but also because of their transparency (which allows investors to know precisely what they own).[/quote]

You need to learn about the issues of backtesting and data mining.  Investing based on trackrecords is like driving while only looking at the rear view mirror. It can be very dangerious at times.

As for the main reason UIT's aren't more common, it has to do with the TCO being higher than the cost of equivalent A-shares. Constantly rolling UIT's is going to cost the client alot more than a single hit with A-shares.

If the underlying strategies were so good, why arent they more popular? With a little effort anyone could replicate them.

There is a reason why UIT's are not a popular form of investment. With only a few sponsors and few users.

[quote]This UIT strategy has averaged 16% over the same 5-year period and 21% over the same 10-year period.  They're both wonderful investments.  Which one would you like to take a closer look at, Mr. Jones?"  If it's true that people like to make easy decisions, guess how this scenario turns out every time?[/quote]

And then comes the issue of past performance/future results. As I remind clients, you can't eat past performance if you weren't part of it.

The question is what is going to happen after you buy the UIT, not what happened when you didn't own it.

[quote]FWIW, I use a combination of funds and UITs with managed ETF programs and/or annuities to build strategy and management diversification into my larger portfolios.[/quote]

If UITs are so good, why not use only UITs?
[/quote]

Hey you f**king retard, use your god damned brain for a minute. Would a client rather see Miami or Baghdad in his rear view mirror? You're such a f**king polack.

Bobby, you're an A-hole.  (not meant as an insult)

Great line.

[quote=anonymous]

Bobby, you're an A-hole.  (not meant as an insult)

Great line.

[/quote]

Do you think I was a little harsh on Corky? I used to have a high level of tolerance for stupid people. It's all gone, now.

I'd love to see AllREIT's sales pitch.  Think he covers the fact that ETF's have 0 opportunity to EVER out-perform "the market"?  Or the fact that his advisory fee will, over time, cost considerably more than an up-front commission?  Wonder what his clients would think if they knew that they would always be losers.

[quote=drewski803]

I’d love to see AllREIT’s sales pitch. 
Think he covers the fact that ETF’s have 0 opportunity to EVER
out-perform “the market”?  Or the fact that his advisory fee will,
over time, cost considerably more than an up-front commission? 
Wonder what his clients would think if they knew that they would always
be losers.

[quote=AllREIT]

As for the main reason UIT’s aren’t more common, it has to do with the TCO being higher than the cost of equivalent A-shares. Constantly rolling UIT’s is going to cost the client alot more than a single hit with A-shares.

[quote=joedabrkr]

AllREIT you’ve made this assertion before and I’ve called you on it
then too.  The TCO expressed in the prospectus for a strategy UIT
such as those you allude to is truly the TOTAL cost. 
[/quote]



I dunno, UIT’s like ETF’s have a fixed cost structure.



I was assuming that a typical stock MF’s 1.32% was inclusive of 
management and trading costs. If it is not, then the UIT could well be
cheaper. There is also the hidden cost of the bid/ask spread. That just
kills MF’s with high turnovers.



One could argue that trading expenses are not really asset based expenses, but are a drag on (and intrinsic to) the performance of the fund.



However UIT’s also have a fairly high turnover so the total expense there can be pretty high as well, (if you spread say 3.75% over 15 months)



The basic rule in investing, is that if the vehicle’s cost is low, then the YTB is likely low as well.

[quote=AllREIT] [quote=drewski803]

I'd love to see AllREIT's sales pitch.  Think he covers the fact that ETF's have 0 opportunity to EVER out-perform "the market"?  Or the fact that his advisory fee will, over time, cost considerably more than an up-front commission?  Wonder what his clients would think if they knew that they would always be losers.

[/quote]

In general, the best you can do is hope to get your fair share of the markets returns less your investment costs. You must ignore the sexy lady who says otherwise.

We can assure clients that their ETF investments won't do worse than (x-bp) than the indexes, we invite them ask their stockbrokers the same question about proposed SMA's/A-shares.

Our sales pitch is pretty simple.

1) Our clients have long time horizons.

2) You can not beat the market with any type of active trading strategies over the time horizons we are planing for.

3) Therefore we aim to buy and hold asset classes cheaply and to only buy stocks with a margin of safety and clear prospects for a cash bailout.

4) Stock market returns are explained by the Fama/French model and the non-distressed bond market is effecient.

5) An continious advisory fee aligns our interests with the clients. It promotes an ongoing relationship. A commision model encourages advisors to ignore or churn the account.

The stockbroker who actually bought and held A-shares for as long as he said he would have gotten fired for non-production long ago.

6) All investment strategies should be based on the goal of the preservation of principal *and* having an absolute return greater than CPI.

[/quote]

You should sue the government. That Agent Orange that your mom was exposed to during your second trimester did some really bad stuff.

In general, the best you can do is hope to get your fair share of the markets returns less your investment costs. You must ignore the sexy lady who says otherwise.

So, your basic promise to your client is "We promise to underperfom by 1% (or whatever you charge) + investment expenses"  Wouldn't your clients be better off simply by dumping you and buying no load?

We can assure clients that their ETF investments won't do worse than (x-bp) than the indexes, we invite them ask their stockbrokers the same question about proposed SMA's/A-shares.

So basically you have assured your client that they can have virtually unlimited losses, but in no case will they outperform the index.  With the SMA's/A-shares, the client can still have unlimited losses, but they have the ability to outperform the index.   They can go into a VA and be guaranteed to not lose money and have the ability to outperform the index.   ETF's don't look too good in this light.  (I actually have no problem with ETF's, but if you send them back to their stockbroker with this question, they won't move the business.)

Our sales pitch is pretty simple.

1) Our clients have long time horizons.

That's interesting.  Do you do retirement planning and nothing else?  I would think that clients would also have goals with short and medium time horizons.

2) You can not beat the market with any type of active trading strategies over the time horizons we are planing for.

The investor needs to be relatively passive.  The investment does not.  Investor behavior is much more important than active vs. passive investments.  ie. An investor who takes a buy and hold approach with actively managed funds will do much better than an investor who actively buys and sells passive investments.

3) Therefore we aim to buy and hold asset classes cheaply and to only buy stocks with a margin of safety and clear prospects for a cash bailout.

4) Stock market returns are explained by the Fama/French model and the non-distressed bond market is effecient.

5) An continious advisory fee aligns our interests with the clients. It promotes an ongoing relationship. A commision model encourages advisors to ignore or churn the account.

It promotes an ongoing relationship simply because an advisory fee compensates the advisor more.  For this very reason, I prefer to do investments for a fee.  However, the truth lies in the fact that an honest advisor will give quality service whether it is in a fee-based or commissioned account.  

The stockbroker who actually bought and held A-shares for as long as he said he would have gotten fired for non-production long ago.

Early in my career, I was an "A" share junky.  My early clients are still in their "A" shares.   Ultimately, "A" shares do hurt production, but for the short term, they increase production.   

6) All investment strategies should be based on the goal of the preservation of principal *and* having an absolute return greater than CPI.

I completely disagree.  All investment strategies should be based on the goal of maximizing the chance for the client to achieve their financial goals.  If you believe what you are saying, there is a better way to invest your clients' money than what you are doing. 

Since your clients need to preserve principal and beat the CPI, they need to be moderately conservative.  The VA's that you hate so much will accomplish this goal and your client will be able to invest aggressively instead.  You'll be able to guarantee the preservation of their principal. 

Do your clients want to die broke or leave money behind?  Assuming that they want to leave money behind,  they should put the "leave behind" money into a whole life insurance policy.  They will preserve principal and beat the CPI even if they live well past life expectancy.  If they are lucky enough to die early...

Doesn't it suck that the products that will best preserve principal and beat CPI are products that you hate?

(I'm only advocating VA's and WL for everyone if they believe All investment strategies should be based on the goal of the preservation of principal *and* having an absolute return greater than CPI.)

[quote=AllREIT]

AllREIT you’ve made this assertion before and I’ve called you on it
then too.  The TCO expressed in the prospectus for a strategy UIT
such as those you allude to is truly the TOTAL cost. 
[/quote]



I dunno, UIT’s like ETF’s have a fixed cost structure.



I was assuming that a typical stock MF’s 1.32% was inclusive of 
management and trading costs. If it is not, then the UIT could well be
cheaper. There is also the hidden cost of the bid/ask spread. That just
kills MF’s with high turnovers.



One could argue that trading expenses are not really asset based expenses, but are a drag on (and intrinsic to) the performance of the fund.



However UIT’s also have a fairly high turnover so the total expense there can be pretty high as well, (if you spread say 3.75% over 15 months)

For the product line I use it is 2.95% the first 15 months and 1.95% for every 15 months thereafter.  If you use a simple mathematical average of 4 trusts (w/rolls) that comes out to an “all in” average annual cost of 2.2%, which I would suggest compares favorably to an A-share with internal expenses of around 1.25%(or more) and annual trading costs of 2%, not to mention the drag of cash in the portfolio and, as you acknowledged, the big-ask spread.

Don’t get me wrong, I use both.  I’ve just found UIT’s to be a very effective tool, and one that most folks don’t understand.  Maybe in some ways that’s better for me because it gives me an advantage over the competition.



The basic rule in investing, is that if the vehicle’s cost is low, then the YTB is likely low as well.

Generally true.  I think with UIT’s the YTB/cost ratio is a little better because there’s less friction in terms of costs paid to brokerage firms and portfolio managers for constant trading.

[quote=Bobby Hull]

You should sue the government. That Agent Orange that your mom was exposed to during your second trimester did some really bad stuff.

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=Bobby Hull]

You should sue the government. That Agent Orange that your mom was exposed to during your second trimester did some really bad stuff.

[/quote]

BH ultimately you can post whatever you want, but I think this is the kind of over the top counterproductive stuff that is getting you a lot of cr*p from certain parties.  For what it's worth...
[/quote]

It's not worth much. It'll be forgotten in 5 to 10 minutes.

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=Bobby Hull]

You should sue the government. That Agent Orange that your mom was exposed to during your second trimester did some really bad stuff.

[/quote]

BH ultimately you can post whatever you want, but I think this is the kind of over the top counterproductive stuff that is getting you a lot of cr*p from certain parties.  For what it's worth...
[/quote]

He finally gets it! Bingo! Good job, broker boy. This venom is exactly what others are talking about.  It's not entertaining nor hilarious and isn't forgotten about either.

Retired? with nothing better to do than insult people all day.

Someone calls him an a-hole and then politely kisses his ass!  Why do you people continually brown-nose this f*ng Asshole.

San Fran Broker has his number!

I echo that he is an acidic moron and that's what I'm talking about broker, you must call him on this unacceptable behavor.  Thinking it is hilarious and entertaining puts you in the same category of lower class scumbags.

[quote=echo]

[/quote]

BH ultimately you can post whatever you want, but I think this is the kind of over the top counterproductive stuff that is getting you a lot of cr*p from certain parties.  For what it’s worth…
[/quote]

He finally gets it! Bingo! Good job, broker boy. This venom is exactly what others are talking about.  It's not entertaining nor hilarious and isn't forgotten about either.

Retired? with nothing better to do than insult people all day.

Someone calls him an a-hole and then politely kisses his ass!  Why do you people continually brown-nose this f*ng Asshole.

San Fran Broker has his number!

I echo that he is an acidic moron and that's what I'm talking about broker, you must call him on this unacceptable behavor.  Thinking it is hilarious and entertaining puts you in the same category of lower class scumbags.

Here he is folks brown-nosing BH again.

Yes, he said it here, folks: he thinks BHull's behavior is entertaining and hilarious.

San Fran Broker said it best!

All acidic a**holes stick together.  and it is YOU who is the biggest self-righteous, allmighty broker man who thinks he can smooth talk and do no wrong: you are very wrong to think Bobby Hull is right in talking to others this way.

This isn't just my opinion-others have voiced how bad this BH is and then you keep taking up for him.  I'm sure others put you in the same cateogory and you are losing any and all crediability by the company you keep, as_shole. 

You are a scumbag just like him!  A person who is entertained when others are mistreated: yep, that would make you a scumbag.

You're not fooling anyone.  Others will soon put you in the same cateogory as him: well, if that's what you want.  You've been warned.

Maybe others won't say anything about you backing him so much but they will be thinking that you must be a scum bag, too.

[quote=echo]

Here he is folks brown-nosing BH again.

Yes, he said it here, folks: he thinks BHull's behavior is entertaining and hilarious.

San Fran Broker said it best!

All acidic a**holes stick together.  and it is YOU who is the biggest self-righteous, allmighty broker man who thinks he can smooth talk and do no wrong: you are very wrong to think Bobby Hull is right in talking to others this way.

This isn't just my opinion-others have voiced how bad this BH is and then you keep taking up for him.  I'm sure others put you in the same cateogory and you are losing any and all crediability by the company you keep, as_shole. 

You are a scumbag just like him!  A person who is entertained when others are mistreated: yep, that would make you a scumbag.

You're not fooling anyone.  Others will soon put you in the same cateogory as him: well, if that's what you want.  You've been warned.

Maybe others won't say anything about you backing him so much but they will be thinking that you must be a scum bag, too.

 [/quote]

Let me make myself clear, parachute/fighnancy/madison/goforbroke.  I'll use small words so I can be sure you understand me.

I have no other aliases:  I am only me, echo.  We're starting to get the opinion that you and pratoman might be Bobby Hull, though.

You and others continually brown nose him. You are afraid you will be added to his victim list if you contridict him in any way.   If you want him to tone it down, then encourage this instead of being entertained by Bobby Hull trashing others!

I do not care if you value my presence here or not. I could care less about your opinion of me.  I do not need your approval to post here.  I have no jokes to tell you other than... I had a broker once who apparently did his job: he made me broke! 

You are self-righteous and holier than thou and your venomous talk means absolutely nothing.  When you support Bobby Hull, it makes you look just like him: a scumbag!  I echo that!

[quote=echo]

I have no other aliases:  I am only me, echo.  We’re starting to get the opinion that you and pratoman might be Bobby Hull, though.

You and others continually brown nose him. You are afraid you will be added to his victim list if you contridict him in any way.   If you want him to tone it down, then encourage this instead of being entertained by Bobby Hull trashing others!

I do not care if you value my presence here or not. I could care less about your opinion of me.  I do not need your approval to post here.  I have no jokes to tell you other than... I had a broker once who apparently did his job: he made me broke! 

You are self-righteous and holier than thou and your venomous talk means absolutely nothing.  When you support Bobby Hull, it makes you look just like him: a scumbag!  I echo that!

 [/quote]

I do not fear BH at all.  No need to.

You are obviously parachute/goforbroke/madison/4luvofmoney.  Your writing style, poor spelling, and the positions you take make it so obvious as to be laughable.

You're obsessed with this other poster.  This poster isn't me.

Positions? Even his peers feel the SAME way.

Other names?  When you brown nose so much, it does seem that you might even be him!  If someone talks about others having aliases so much, it normally means that they are trying to hide the fact that they use aliases themselves.

Don't waste any more time on me.  I've wasted all the time I'm going to on you, trying to tell you that when you accept and encourage this behavior and find it hilarious and entertaining, it puts you in the same exact category.

BTW, if you like to critique writing so much, maybe you should have been an English Professor.

Acidic morons!  One acid moron spoils the whole bunch, just look how rotten this Joe the Broker character has gotten.  I echo that! 

I find Bobby Hull’s comments very amusing. Granted, he doesn’t hold back, but the reactions of those who CAN’T TAKE IT adds to the amuzement. If you can’t take a little anonymous ribbing on a chatboard, your chances of handling all of the rejection in this business is quite obvious. Of course, we all know that parachute/madison/echo/et. al. isn’t in this business. An occasional non-PC comment is better than ever-flowing drivel that adds absolutely nothing!



I still might slap you, young lady…