Ron Chernow Quotes

Mutual fund managers want your money in their funds. They get paid based on assets under management.

The best argument for mutual funds is that they offer safety and diversification. But they don't necessarily offer safety and diversification.

It's the company itself, but most of these mutual fund companies, the guy who runs the company is just a fact totem and the guy who runs the money is the power. But we really don't know who they are.

I think you'll do as well as most professionals. Most professionals don't beat the market. Let's not over-rate my industry. But if you have time, you can be in good mutual funds that have good records.

The mutual fund industry and small investors are very relentless and very unforgiving if people don't perform.

Investors tend to discover 'hot' mutual fund managers just after a successful run and just before the inescapable force of mean reversion is about to kick in.

I'm sometimes accused of being hostile to mutual funds. That's not fair, really. There is a place for them. Still, I am hostile to one thing, which is trying to use funds to time your way in and out of the market. That's a recipe for very bad results.

Mutual funds have historically offered safety and diversification. And they spare you the responsibility of picking individual stocks.

Often, investors will discover a manager after he's had a terrific run, usually when he lands on a magazine cover somewhere. Invariably, funds swell up with new investor money just before they revert to their long-term averages.

Mutual funds dare to be average. In fact, they dare to be lousy. They have long since ceased striving for anything resembling perfection when it comes to managing your money.

Mutual funds with superior performance records often falter.

99% of fund managers demonstrate no evidence of skill whatsoever.

Mutual fund manager performance does not persist and the return of stock picking is zero.

Hedge fund managers charge so much more than mutual fund managers; alpha is even harder to come by. They end up selling a variety of things beyond mere outperformance.

You could lose hundreds or thousands one day on paper and gain it all back the next, and it has literally no effect on your immediate future, provided the money you have in the market is money you're investing for the long haul (meaning at least three to five years).

The average investor's return is significantly lower than market indices due primarily to market timing.

I had some airline stock, but the airlines tanked. I didn't have a lot of money in them, though.

I'm not a money manager, but I can tell you what the conventional wisdom is. The younger you are, the more risk you can take on.

There were two qualities about the mutual funds of the 1920s that made them extremely speculative. One was that they were heavily leveraged. Two, mutual funds were allowed to invest in other mutual funds.

Mutual funds give people the sense that they're investing with the big boys and that they're really not at a disadvantage entering the stock market.

When markets are rallying, cash in the portfolio is a drag on performance, returning about zero.

My investments have been hurt.

My advice to the average investor in 1988 is to be patient and think long-term. It will take 18 months for confidence to get better and, in the meantime, this is absolutely no place for short-term money.

The average mutual fund holding period for equity or fixed income is only about three years. It's too short.

The last thing you want to do, unless it's a very unusual situation, is to invest money.