There's a bunch of newsletters and blogs advertising those changes, as credit card affiliate programs tend to be generous, especially for driving new sign-ups.

Not endorsing, but these are the ones my "newsletters" email account subscribes to:

* https://yourbestcreditcards.com/ for credit card bonuses

* https://www.frequentflyerbonuses.com/ for hotel, airline and other travel programs

Isn't that usually indicative of a winner-takes-all sector running on pretty thin margins?

ETFs are a relatively recent phenomenon, the criticism I remember from 2008 era is having paycheck + employee stock purchase plan + 401k concentrated in a single stock - employer's.

ETFs are mostly irrelevant from a 401(k) perspective because no one is trading on a daily basis. Some 401(k) plans do now offer ETFs among the investment options but for the most part they have always focused on regular mutual funds. Average expense ratios have come down a bit since 2008.

Regular mutual funds usually have higher risk and tax exposure than the ETFs...

Met a lot of bums in suits trying to sell me on several flavors of BS over the years. lol =3

You seem to be confused about finance. There is no particular connection between a fund's risk and tax exposure, and whether it is exchange tradable or not. Some regular mutual funds are very low risk. Some ETFs are very high risk. Tax exposure is largely irrelevant for 401(k), IRA, and other tax-free retirement accounts.

> no particular connection between a fund's risk and tax exposure

They seem to be posting a lot of word-salad comments, but assuming good faith, they're saying these are separate downsides of mutual funds over ETFs.

Mutual funds trade on your behalf, like an ETF, but they pass through the gains and losses. That can be painful if they realise those gains when you'd rather not have them, or crystallise losses when you don't have offsets. In this, they're correct. On risk, they're wrong--you can stuff nonsense into ETFs as comfortably as mutual funds. What they're indirectly criticising here is active versus passive management, which is its own can of worms.

The only advantage of a mutual fund over an ETF is it provides friction to trading. Otherwise, they're a vestige from the cusp of computerised portfolio management. (If you have more than ~$1 to 10mm, you should be rolling your own portfolio in most cases.)

This account posts a lot of off-topic straw-man arguments, and wild context guesses like regular bot slop.

My issue with bank-fool recommend mutual funds is primarily they are often a self-serving structured product. i.e. the odds a sucker never sees a consistent behavior is far greater than random chance, and a unconstrained arbitrary guess of a chicken would likely perform better in the markets.

Best of luck, =3

> bank-fool recommend mutual funds…the odds a sucker never sees a consistent behavior is far greater than random chance

Again, you’re criticising active management in general. (And seem to be mixing up alpha and tracking error. Passively-managed funds aren’t aiming to outperform the market.)

There is no evidence actively-managed ETFs (or hedge funds, for that matter) outperform actively-managed mutual funds. There is also not a material difference in tracking error between their passive products.

ETFs are a retail product. Like mutual funds. Make financial decisions based on the product, not the wrapper. (Also, where in the fuck does one go to get mutual funds in 2025 anyway?!)

    > This account posts a lot of off-topic straw-man arguments, and wild context guesses like regular bot slop.

"This account" -- Do you mean account "JumpCrisscross"? No, I disagree. This person posts lots of intelligent things about securities markets and trading. You can review their history. I assume they work in securities trading on Wall Street (or something nearly adjacent).

"This person posts lots of intelligent things"

A broken clock is still right twice a day...

Thread hijacking is not necessarily intelligence, but rather an attempt to cow people with off-topic rhetoric. However, I do respect your opinions =3

    > Regular mutual funds usually have higher risk ... than the ETFs.

Can you provide some specific examples? If anything, the transaction friction around mutual funds prevents most regular investors from unnecessary trading that exchange-listed ETFs allow. TL;DR: For most people, more trading means more losses or worse returns.

There are several potential mutual fund problems, but the ones most consumers are exposed to arise from institutional and private "investment advisors". There is no legal protection from banks externalizing toxic assets acquired though risky decisions onto customers, and or ridiculous ballooning management fees siphoning off actual profit. The other issues are mostly from various end-runs around acceptable market rules and practices.

In general, most amateur holds permute well below 3 to 4 months on average. Note the old joke: "Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered"... was never funny for those providing cash capital to gamblers.

Most people assume they are luckier than average... and most of Las Vegas was also built on losers money.

Have a great day, =3

You’re mixing up adviser fees (ETFs have lower fees than mutual funds; neither is directly related to adviser fees), toxic assets, CMOs, balloon mortgages and possibly management fees and carried interest. These are related concepts inasmuch as they’re all financial terms.

You seem confused by my frustration with tools towing the company line rather than providing reliable investment advice.

Personally, I prefer retaining the option to sue people that pull stunts. But to each their own... =3

> I prefer retaining the option to sue people that pull stunts

If that's an option for you, sure. I work in finance and retain FINRA arbitration as a customer. When I'm signing with clients, I do not like to include it--I have a strong advantage in court and don't want a venue that's biased against me as a professional.

All of this is totally irrelevant to ETFs, mutual funds and CMOs because those are distributed funds whose terms aren't negotiable after offering. (If you're worrying about suing the guy selling you ETFs, you're doing something wrong. Probably overtrading.)

Do 401k plans allow people to buy single stocks? I never saw it in my experience. I cannot believe that would be considered "prudent" by financial regulators. However, when you leave a company you can "roll-over" your 401k into an IRA, then you can go wild and buy anything that you want (IBRK allows it).

i401k’s which you have to manage yourself if you are a contractor allow you to purchase whatever you want depending on where your account is. I was with Vanguard and they do not allow it - I moved my account to etrade and now my 401k account is basically like my brokerage account, I can buy whatever I want.

BKLC is 0.00%.

What's your take than on HELOC?

Capital gains on a primary residence is not taxes in most the cases anyways, so HELOC changes nothing tax wise.

> A product design team staffed only by men is destined to collapse unless they're only trying to market to other men

If this is demonstrably true, where are the hedge funds shorting male-dominant firms and venture funds getting the edge by doing the opposite in the startup land?

Seems like an obvious trade.

> The younger two dropped out of college

> He left college after his first semester when, like his older brother Daniel, he couldn’t figure out what he was doing there.

> Daniel, who left college midway through his sophomore year after indecision about his major spiraled into a larger existential crisis.

Perhaps the effort to shove everyone and their brother into higher education is a bit misguided?

With schools lowering standards to boost graduation rates, and politicians conveniently promising yet more college affordability every 4 years, it’s hard to avoid perceiving one’s self-worth through the lens of college performance.

Those craving character are probably not the target audience.

> Liu was motivated by Irvine’s good schools and low crime rate

As long as the fundamentals are there, it just seems poised to attract LA money and SF Bay Area money, even if Asian buyers move on to something else.

Production and consumption might match, but the grid throughput might not.

> The greatest minds that have thus far graced this planet were not specialists, they exceeded in a wide pool of areas

For each polymath there's also Michael Jordan and golfing.

I never thought someone would compare polymaths (let's call it, intellectual or mental power) to people with great athletic ability (let's call it, physical power)

Although thinking about it a bit more right now, I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to be great at a wide range of physical activities to be considered a polymath - as opposed to both physical and mental activities, or solely just intellectual activities

If someone excels in a great deal of, say, a number of sports (which I admit, would be nigh impossible in the current age with all the professional sports leagues and their exclusiveness), one could probably argue that that person is a genius