How about winding down this circle talk we have created here?
I am quite aware of the fact that Money, etc. "periodically" mention load funds. But somewhere in the article they always harp on the load part as a negative ( proof of my bias statement). I am also aware of the Planner of the Month (which really means what?) In fact, the magazine YOU are refering to is "Mutual Fund Magazine"! (I get it too :smile:).
BUT, the "balance" is NOT there...ever!
Hey, noloads or loads, neither category outperforms the other.
It you want advice, pay a load/fee.
If not buy a no load (its that simple). So, I would think that Money, etc. (who realize this) would just be fair and provide equal time. But they won't- its NOT good business for them to do so. And X, thats why they are bias. And since many people don't see this, I am making a statement to that regards.
Someone posted about info in Money, Kiplingers about 529 plans. I said basically beaware, they are biased. And, I did say I give them no credibility. A big reason is because they portray themselves as unbias. At least I say, someway, somehow I am getting "paid" for my advice. Big difference in FULL DISCLOSURE!
In addition, almost all (if not all) the articles I read don't tell the whole story and or leave out important and relevant details. I always find "holes" in their stories.
And saying that they give the info and its up to others to follow up on it is wrong. First, thats not Money etc. intention. Its their intention for readers to "do what they say". Also, Most people don't follow up. In either case, readers don't get the whole picture, and thats NOT good!
Regarding your 2nd paragragh, off the subject, so I won't answer...and waste more space on irrelevance!