There's a big difference between actively managed mutual funds / ETF's and hedge funds, so don't confuse the two. Hedge funds typically have a long list of requirements as far as the amount deposited, when you can get access to it, etc. and they usually employ pretty complicated options strategies or very concentrated holdings to invest based on a specific goal, whereas typical actively managed funds are looking to gain performance similar to a benchmark while achieving a targeted risk tolerance. E.g., they may try to match the S&P 500 by owning only stocks that pay dividends, or stocks with favorable financials.

I'm not so sure about that. As a counterpoint, American Funds has 17 of their 18 equity funds outperforming the index over their lifetime and they've been doing this since 1934. Sure you can pick periods of time where they lagged the indexes, but as a poster above mentioned, active funds tend to earn their stripes in volatile markets where there is actually an edge to picking high quality stocks and not owning "all of the junk" along with it. One of the reasons so many people lost money in the dot-com bust was that the sector had gotten so large that it was skewing all of the market cap weighted indexes, so when it came crashing down it took indexers with it while active managers with any sense didn't allow technology to become the dominant holding in the portfolio.

https://www.capitalgroup.com/i...

I'm sure there are other stories, but this is at least one example that challenges the "passive is always better" mantra.

Should have been obvious when you bought speaker that didn't have speaker terminals on it ... Believe me, I thought long and hard before buying one on the very concern that someday I wouldn't be able to use them if something happened to the company.

Nowhere in their post did they imply or state that the product would no longer work. They specifically said, "Continue using these legacy products, recognizing that your system will no longer receive software updates and new features."

I didn't understand the confusion from the get-go, nor the perhaps over-reported reactions from consumers. A CEO telling you that a product with a software-based back end would no longer be receiving updates after, in some cases, 10 years on the market should be expected to some extent. He made no comment that the products were getting worse in any way, just that they wouldn't be expected to do much more tomorrow than they could today and that was unlikely to change due to hardware limitations. This is exactly the same reasoning used by almost any other product with a software backend. My car doesn't receive any more feature-adding updates, Windows 7 doesn't and your 10-year-old SONOS speaker don't ... nothing to see here.

A) I agree they haven't detailed what role sports will play in the future of their streaming services, I merely meant that as an entity, they have a lot of levers to pull to provide content

B) The network content isn't mean to be a standalone offering, it merely sweetens the deal. And I do believe that providing access to new/old content from ABC/FOX/Natural Geographic/Disney channels helps substantiate the offering as I'm sure many people still enjoy rewatching or watching for the first time some of those older shows. If they didn't, there'd be no reason for services like Hulu, CBS Direct, etc. to exist. While I'm sure they don't pull nearly the numbers that new original programming do, it still helps round it out.

C) I thought this would be the case for all streaming services. Why subscribe to Netflix or HBO year round when you can just subscribe for a month and catch up on all the content for the year? Obviously the subscriber numbers show that isn't the trend, either due to inertia or other causes. So with a regular movie release schedule spread throughout the year, in combination with regular releases of new episodic content and a library of classics that the next generation didn't get to see or the older generation wants to revisit, I think they'll have a solid product.

Iâ(TM)m not sure that Netflix has to fail in order for Disney to succeed. But the rather large number of commenters on here that think a Disney subscription has no appeal are, in my humble opinion, completely wrong. As itâ(TM)s been mentioned repeatedly, Disney has a HUGE current and past catalog of family friendly content to pull from across public channels (ABC and Fox), sports (ESPN), and movie franchises (Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, Disney Animation Studios). They also own the controlling stake in Hulu and within 5 years will have complete control. What this allows Disney to do that Netflix cannot, is to bundle a complete cable replacement package (movies+sports+network TV) at a price that could be compelling enough. For me, their other big advantage is their MoviesAnywhere platform as it allows me to add the majority of my purchased video content to their service for access anywhere in the world. No other content producer that Iâ(TM)m aware of currently offers that feature.

So I believe their are setting themselves up to be the only true one-stop-shop for content delivery. The debate about their content creation capabilities has its merit, but Iâ(TM)m personally hopeful that with so much of their focus going into this new platform, that we will get some proper attention to new Star Wars spinoffs and Marvel series. The biggest question in my mind is whether they will use their new direct-to-consumer platform to produce more risqué content. I think that a large amount of the appeal of HBO and Netflix are that their original shows donâ(TM)t have to meet broadcast TV standards, allowing for edgier/racier content with heightened levels of violence and nudity, along with more flexibility in package structure (length of the show). Will Disney capitalize on this or will they stick to their more traditional PG-13 and under focus?

Either way, I think for a service that will cost a little over $5/month, itâ(TM)ll be a no-brainer for MANY households to add this to their monthly subscription list.

There is a level of debatable difference between previous iterations of car modding (more power, better/worse handling, appearance, sound) and modifying software that has the ability to fully drive a car. Sure, adding a supercharger and 200 HP to a car could make it more dangerous in the hands of an average driver, or potentially push the physics of the car to the point where it's no longer 100% safe on the road, but that's still in a different realm than messing with the brain of a car that you didn't design, that perhaps isn't even fully understood by the hackers, and could, in theory, drive the car by itself in any way that it wants.

The key difference here is the previous modding still left the driver in control, this modding could (maybe not in its current iteration but future iterations) put the control in something else's hands.

No, but you can pay someone else to do it for you, not much different.

And the geniuses at the state level have or have not considered donating this to other public entities in the state, e.g., the public school systems, state universities, etc. that probably all receive some level of state funding?

I didn't mean for that to come off as an "advertisement" (it's not like I even posted contact information), but I think any person is motivated to justify their value (either to potential or existing customers or to their employer). I also don't think you're a "sucker" for trying to do it on your own. I just don't agree with articles and the following discussion that attempt to speak for everyone when it comes to fees for service. Does it make sense to pay an accountant to do your taxes? How about paying the dealership to fix your car? After all, with access to the internet you've basically got all of the information you need to be able to solve any problem you might encounter.

You do, however, have limited time in the day and need to prioritize and assign a value to that time. Is it best spent researching the best fund providers or calculating the savings rate necessary to retire at 65? Is hunting down your replacement car part online and then spending two hours in the garage with bloody knuckles worth saving $100 at the dealership? Can the tax accountant find an extra deduction for you to justify their fee in filling out a 1040 form? The answers to these questions are not universal, they are different for everyone.

As someone who just recently switched careers to be a financial advisor, I find your experience to be disheartening. I spent twenty years as an engineer but didn't feel fulfilled because I couldn't see a direct impact of my labor improving the lives of the people around me, so I wanted a way to more directly benefit those around me. I agree with the general sentiment in this thread that it's hard for the average investor to quantify the financial benefit of working with an advisor on an account with fee-based billing.

Vanguard (and others) have done research on this (https://advisors.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip/site/advisorsec/researchcommentary/article/IWE_ResPuttingAValueOnValue) and have quantified the value of an advisor at somewhere between 1.5 and 3.0% on average (and this is Vanguard saying this). Many people are somewhat short-sighted by the decade long bull market in US equities where it's been hard for any active strategy to outperform, but a lot of value from working with a professional comes from behavioral coaching during long bear markets, as well as tax strategies closer to retirement.

I sympathize with not wanting to pay someone else for something I feel capable of doing on my own. I hate paying an electrician when I can do basic electrical work, despise hiring a painter or dry-wall installer to little repairs here and there, and don't even get me started on paying for insurance. The true value you get from any professional isn't the daily value they add to your life, it's the way they swoop in to save you during an emergency. The story I like to tell is about (of all things) my insurance agent (and I'm not here to ding or promote anyone specifically so I'll leave names out), but you could show me all the commercials in the world about how I could save 15% by switching to some online insurance company with no local office, and nothing you could say would motivate me to switch. I have a personal relationship with my agent, and I can say with 100% certainty that if I were on my lawn watching my house burn down at 2 AM, my agent would be there as fast as he could to put his arm around my family and me to say "I know this looks bad, but I'm going to take care of it, let's get you to a hotel and don't worry about a thing." That's where professionals are worth every dime, but you have to work with someone who genuinely cares about you and not their take home pay.

So if you want to go it alone, you certainly can (I send many people that direction if it's best for them), but if you find a good professional and give them a chance, there are many ways they can add value to what you're doing. Financial Advisors (and CFP's in particular) are there to help with all aspects of your financial life, including tax planning, estate planning, risk management, education funding, charitable giving, etc.

It's funny to me that on a site like Slashdot, we can have a confluence of the raging "I hate Windows", the blind recommendations of "everyone should switch to Linux" and at the same time admit that we are subject to ISP's where a 100 MB download is something we need to be concerned about.

If technology is your true obsession in traditional Slashdot sense, then you could really care less about people running Windows because it's not you. You're already running Linux and think the rest of the world should just give up, and you're paying for gigabit fiber because #fiber.

If you're anyone else, Windows gets the job done, you don't notice or don't care that 6 stupid games appeared minutes after installing your computer and quickly figured out you could right-click and uninstall them and go about your business. You'll not even be aware that the ISP's covering the majority of the population have either eliminated data caps (Comcast) or have caps so reasonably high (>350 GB) that a few hundred MB on a wasted game download is inconsequential (CenturyLink, AT&T, Cox) or you'll be thankful that in Windows you can set a connection as Metered to limit background downloads.

https://broadbandnow.com/inter...

MS charges $60/yr for Gold, not $120. Most of the time you can find discounted codes that are closer to $45 / yr. You get 4 games / month with Gold (2 for 360, 2 for Xbox One), but I agree that usually they aren't the best or newest games (but neither are 30-year old Nintendo games).

Have to agree with you there. Had Android phones (Motorola and HTC) and Windows phones (Nokia), both struggled to maintain support even at 1 year old. Google and Microsoft would push the updates out to vendors but then the vendors would sit on it for months, if they even released it at all. At least in Apple's universe you never feel like you're losing out to someone else. Yes, you still get dropped due to old age at some point, but iOS 12 supports the 5s that was released in 2013, so that's a pretty good run of support (5 years!). And you know that you're getting the update at the same time on your phone as everyone else.