usertaken

I've heard different years and that's why I bring it up....because the "science" has been disagreeing on this point. Does this take into account the emissions deal w/ China? Because that should push that figure out a couple years or decades from that 2100 figure, no? How much? It's science.

Boils down to if you believe the authors are giving an unbiased viewpoint. They receive funding from someone, no? Do those sources benefit from taxing emissions?

Snow doesn't fall in warm places.

Why did the narrative change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? Because you can't prove the climate changes. The climate has been changing since the earth was created and it will continue to change. Can someone tell me when Miami will be underwater like you tell me it will be? Give me a date range...something specific. Since it's science and it can be "proven" then someone should be able to tell me that. And if that date comes and goes and it doesn't happen do you promise to back down or will you make up an excuse? Of course you won't back down. You'll just tweak your theories. Until then why take issue with taxing U.S. companies w/ carbon taxes or whatever you're calling it nowadays and focus on the real carbon polluters....China, Latin America?

And I can see how it will play on CNN and MSNBC....with virtually no coverage. Bias plays both ways.

And some people refuse to give in when their theory was just disproven. Really depressing.

Correction from what? They say they filed chapter 11. Standard bankruptcy for companies is chapter 11 in most people's minds...most companies that go through bankruptcy file chapter 11.

How is this any different than just getting the json feed for the sheet? I find it much more flexible.

Not saying it will make a HUGE change in and of itself but it does compound

Let's say a regulation was passed that didn't allow market orders. Retail investors would feel "safer" b/c they think the government is protecting them. They will then be more inclined to not bother researching the companies they own, etc because, well, the government has got their back. Why not dump all our money into stocks if the government is gonna protect us, right? The problem is that there are a million ways to lose money in investing....chief among them is not spending time to do the research on the companies in which you are invested.

The best protection is to be well-informed of what is going on. Certainly, we can't know everything (such as how our food was prepared, quality of it, etc) but every investor putting money into stocks should know something as basic as a market order vs a limit order....that is NOT too much to ask.

I'm not saying get RID of all regulations but clearly there's a limit to how much regulation....if someone can't be bothered to google "market order vs limit order" then they deserve to get their a handed to them when they decide to panic sell on one of the worst times to sell. They clearly aren't cut out for this if they are panic selling in the first place. I made money during this time partly b/c I took 2 minutes out of my day many, many years ago and learned the difference between a market and a limit order. Literally, 2 minutes! Next thing you're gonna tell me is that if someone sells at a loss (nevermind it being a "panic" or not) they should be compensated by the gains I made from their stupidity.

I think you're right but people need to learn before they do stuff....you can't walk around life being dependent on regulations protecting you. I can't even remember the last time I placed a market order.

"Seriously, those things should just be banned from retail investment and retail investment education."

The problem is we aren't just talking about ETFs...there were similar effects happening in individual stocks where they were down much, much greater than this ETF. We should just ban stocks for retail investors?

What's wrong with people learning about things before they throw money into something they don't understand? Banning this and banning that blindly just makes people more dependent on someone else doing their homework for them. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and read up on stuff before dumping money into something.

I work in the industry. You are right on a general basis but there are plenty of funds that don't get a lot of press and kill it year in and year out AND charge less than 2 and 20. Most hedge funds are, at best, average because they don't know what they're doing. Don't blindly give 2 and 20 to an avg. hedge fund.

Do the math and giving even 2 and 20 to a superstar will allow you to compound at a much faster rate than the S&P500.

An active fund at 1% or less per year doesn't make sense. Most mutual funds essentially act like ETFs as a lot of them are focused on relative performance and not absolute performance. You should read the beginning chapters of Margin of Safety (if you can find the book) as it really helps to explain the mindset of a MF. To reduce expenses for active funds further will only exacerbate this.

If you want to outperform the market, however, you need to find a GREAT hedge fund that charges 1% management fee (at most) and an incentive fee...otherwise it doesn't make sense to pay a flat fee to a MF and get just average performance. (There are exceptions as some MFs do consistently outperform the market but these are few and FAR between).