Volume II: Frank Armstrong answers
questions from readers of Investment Strategies for the 21st Century. To submit a
question to Frank, write to us.
Questions and Responses:
What criteria do I use to choose where to
transfer my IRA?
from GS
Q: I am searching for a bank, brokerage house, to
"house" my IRA. At present, I have it at my bank but want to transfer it. What
criteria do I use to choose where to transfer my IRA? One concern is banks usually have
FDIC as their insurer. Do Brokerage houses have the equivalent? If a brokerage house
fails, what happens to the IRA accounts, etc? Can you as a client lose your holdings? I
have contacted Schwab and Waterhouse, for example. I have also written to JANUS since I'm
interested in the Janus Worldwide Fund; however, I assume an IRA there would limit me to
the JANUS funds so I'm leaning toward a Schwab or Waterhouse? I would appreciate any help
you can give me. I've read several books on IRA investing, but they don't deal with this
particular topic.
A: Banks and Savings and Loans have
federally-sponsored insurance which guarantees the dollar amounts of deposits in those
institutions. (FDIC or FSLIC). Brokerage houses have a federally sponsored insurance which
guarantees the recovery of shares held in a failed brokerage. (SIPC) Covered losses would
include theft, disappearance, etc. But it is important to understand that the market value
of the securities will continue to fluctuate. The current limits are $500,000 of which
$100,000 may be cash. Most brokerage houses carry an additional commercial insurance
called excess SIPC, which covers larger accounts. In the case of Schwab, it goes up to $75
million.
But, your first line of defense, and the way to avoid unpleasant
surprises, is the financial integrity of the brokerage house. All brokerage houses should
supply you with their most recent audited financial statements. Stay away from any that
are not world class. It just doesn't make sense to have to worry about the failure of a
brokerage house.
In general terms the convenience of the Fund Supermarkets is a major
improvement over trying to meet all your investment needs within one family of funds. But,
there is a wide variation in both service levels and price. Make sure that you don't pay
for more than you need. Cost is the enemy of every investor. This topic has been thrashed
to death on the discussion group, so I won't beat it further. If you missed it try
searching on "Supermarket".
Is the market for small caps less
efficient?
from WM
Q: Morningstar recently published a comparison of
the returns of mutual funds investing in small cap stocks with the returns of index funds
that replicate the Russell 2000 (an index of small cap stocks). The conclusion of the
authors was that the actively managed funds fared a little better than the indexers. Do
you think that the market for small caps is less efficient and that investors could be
better off investing in actively managed funds? Or do you think that the Morningstar
finding was an anomaly and that the outperformance of actively managed funds will
"regress to the mean," thereby making the advantages of small cap index funds
(e.g., lower expenses) more compelling?
A: Most active managers don't want to go out and
get a real job. Playing with other people's money sure beats working. Almost nobody
believes that active managers can beat the S&P 500 consistently, so the last bastion
of the active manager is the so called inefficient markets.
It's hard for me to convince myself that today any of America's
markets suffer from great inefficiencies. There is a wealth of information available on
all of our traded companies, and almost anybody with a PC and a telephone line can watch
the trading in real time. No matter what your particular trading theory is, you can set
your trusty PC to constantly search for mis-priced securities and grab them up in an
instant without human intervention. Rumors, gossip, information and mis-information travel
world wide with the speed of electrons. If literally hundreds of thousands of
investors--and their computers--can be watching the same action at the same time, how
likely is it that one individual will be able for long to cull information that will
reliably and consistently allow him/her to trade for excess profits?
One thing we do know about small companies is that the cost of a
round trip trade is high. So, active traders have to be very skillful indeed to overcome
that drag.
I saw an interesting study recently that deals with the returns of
small company investing. I hope the author will forgive me because I can't put my little
mitts on it to properly give him credit for his research. Anyway, his observations were
that returns in the small cap universe are not randomly distributed. The real action
occurs in the outliers, the top and bottom one percent of the market. In general he found
that most small cap companies have dismal returns. They languish without success and
remain small, marginally profitable and un-famous. A few fail and go to zero. A few hit
home runs and have astounding growth. These successful few contribute all the small
company excess returns to the market.
The spectacular success of the very few is difficult to predict in
advance. Often a single occurrence of good fortune accounts for the difference: an
acquisition, successful patent, or a marketing miracle.
The author concludes that the failure to hold a fair selection of
these very few stocks will destroy the chance of obtaining a small cap market return. By
extension, we can predict a wide variation in returns in small company funds that do not
have proper diversification.
Now, to me, this wide diversification in results is a thing to be
avoided. The risk that my manager will not hold a few of the winners is an uncompensated
risk. An index assures me that my portfolio will have its fair share, and that I will
indeed get the return in that market with the lowest tracking error, and the lowest cost.
William F. Sharpe has spent considerable time thinking about these
problems, and his conclusions are published on his home page. Sharpe has a truly great
mind, and writes in an entertaining and easily understood manner. I would highly
recommend: "The Arithmetic of Active Management." If you want a chuckle or two,
read his: "The Parable of the Money Managers." Both can be found at: http://www-sharpe.stanford.edu
Finally, many studies of mutual fund performance are tainted by
failure to account for survivorship bias. Funds which do poorly do not survive to be
rated. The lack of their data in a study means that the survivors look better as a class
than the whole block of funds which started the period.
I am sure the debate will continue. But, I am comfortable that index
funds are an effective and economical way to capture the performance of small company
funds.
Should I build a single diversified
portfolio with all of our accounts?
from Qing
Q: I'm in my early 30's. Like everybody else, I
have several investment accounts: a brokerage account, my IRA and my wife's IRA. We also
expect to have pension plans soon, so we will not contrbute to the IRA anymore. My
question is whether I should build a single diversified portfolio using all the accounts
or I should build one diversified portfolio for each account. For example, should I just
put all of my IRA into T. Rowe Price Spectrum Growth and forget about this account, or
should I buy Van Wagoner Emerging Growth for the 8% money losing small aggressive portion
of my portfolio. I'm currently in the second situation.
A: I would do a single allocation plan with all the
funds. This should be both simpler to manage, and cheaper to execute.
You might want to consider placing assets which might generate high
tax liabilities (bonds, funds with high turnover, funds with high dividends, etc.) into
the tax deferred accounts. Every penny you can save in taxes you can re-invest for your
future.
Have I missed the boat?
from Walt
Q: I've just found this web site and find it very
interesting. In fact it's now on my favorites list. I've read your nine chapters of your
internet book and can't wait for the rest. Anyway, to get to the piont, I read an article
on this web site "Be Prepared For A Market Correction," by Alan Lavine and Gail
Liberman, (November '96), and of course I'm still in the Market mostly in aggressive small
cap funds, nothing ovcerseas. Should I hold or sell some funds and put proceeds in
overseas funds and or cash? The boat is still sailing.
A: While I enjoy the writing of Lavine/Liberman, I
didn't see this particular article, so I don't want to comment on it directly.
I don't necessarily agree that corrections can be forecast, or an
appropriate strategy built around market timing.
In a broad sense, we should all be prepared for corrections. We know
that they are going to come, we just can't know when. After a huge market run up such as
we have enjoyed for the last few years, every investor should remind himself/herself that
markets don't go straight up forever. That being the case, a certain amount of discipline
is necessary to insure the highest possibility of a successful outcome.
My approach to the problem is to carefully evaluate your short term
cash needs, and insure that you have sufficient resources to cover them. Then you are in a
position to build a portfolio which will meet your needs. Of course, you must consider
time horizon, objectives and risk tolerance. Risk tolerance should be considered every
day, not just when you feel positive about the market. Try to get a feel of the worst
possible short term result that your portfolio might logically have to endure. If you are
prepared to ride out that downturn, then you should be OK as a long term investor.
It always makes sense to diversify into as many asset classes as
possible. Try to build a portfolio that has parts with low correlations to one another.
This will result in a smoother ride most of the time. So, yes, foreign markets, larger
companies, value strategies, and emerging markets should have a part in every portfolio.
Inclusion of these asset classes should increase your long term return while reducing your
risk.
It's never too late to adopt a smarter strategy or build a better
portfolio.
What do I do when market volatility has
"zapped" my earnings?
from Eddie
Q: I am currently invested in: PBHG GROWTH, PBHG
LARGE CAP 30, 20th CENTURY ULTRA/VISTA, and I am wondering what to do. This market
volatility has just zapped my earnings. Any suggestion?
A: To paraphrase a popular bumper sticker,
"Risk Happens!"
Of course, risk happens more to people without diversified
portfolios. Your portfolio is made up of almost entirely of domestic growth companies. The
management style, momentum investing, has been unusually successful for the three years
ending in December 1996. But, it's been hard to find real losing strategies over one of
the longest bull markets on record. However, over longer periods of time, momentum
investing has been a low return, high risk strategy.
Momentum investors buy stocks which have gone up in price. The most
often quoted rationale is that positive earnings surprises have not yet been properly
priced by the market, and so stocks that have appreciated will appreciate more. However,
in practice this often looks more like a greater fool theory gone haywire. When a large
number of investors chase a few growth stocks, they can drive the price of the stocks up.
For a short while, the results look great. But this strategy sows the seeds of its own
collapse. Sooner or later prices get so far out of bounds that any little thing can cause
a tumble in price as investors none too gracefully all head for the door at once. So, you
shouldn't be surprised that your portfolio has had a dismal first quarter compared to the
rest of the market. It's the nature of the beast.
Many fund investors cannot help themselves. For lack of any rational
investment plan, they blindly invest in last year's winners. Of course, when the bubble
inevitably bursts, those same investors start looking around for another fund with great
short term performance. The all too predictable result: a downward spiral and failure to
attain any reasonable performance.
It's not possible to give specific advice without knowing a great
deal more about your financial situation, objectives, risk tolerance, and time horizon.
You may wish to consider these factors as you evaluate your future strategy. You may even
wish to formulate an asset allocation plan designed to meet your objectives, diversify
your portfolio, and invest with a more disciplined and consistent methodology.
At the very least, you must get it out of your head that you should
expect positive results each quarter. The stock market is not a 15% CD! It proceeds in
fits and spurts. Not every quarter, year, or even multi-year period will be pleasant, but
disciplined investors have every reason to expect returns far better than their other
alternatives over the long haul. I evidence is pretty clear that growth-momentum investing
is a sub optimal strategy. But, even a sub-optimal strategy will produce tolerable results
if you hang in there. The very best approaches will smooth the bumps out a little, but not
even the best approach will succeed without discipline.
Should I reinvest in indexed mutual funds?
from Anonymous
Q: I have made many financial mistakes trough the
years. I am now about to turn 40 and would like to start getting ready for retirement. I
recently put $2500 into 3 separate mutual funds ( Janus: Janus fund, Olumpus and
Overseas). Recently I read an article in which Warren Buffett suggests that most investors
will be better off in mutual funds that mirror market indexes. Should I get my money back
and reinvest in indexed mutual funds?
A: Good question.
The evidence supports indexing as the most reliable, and cost
effective, approach to investing.
To all the other well known risks of investing, you should add
manager risk: the substantial risk that the manager will not be able to deliver the
benchmark result in his chosen market segment. About 80% fail to beat their benchmark. The
cost of trying is about 2% on average, and the variation around the benchmark can be
substantial (read that additional risk!).
The most vexing part of the problem is that even if you identify
managers that have outperformed in the past (it's very easy to get this information), it
tells you exactly nothing about the chance that they will outperform during the next
period.
You may wish to check out Chapter 7 and 8 of my book, published here
on MFI. I attempt to deal with the question of efficient markets and management's ability
to add value.
If you still want more on the subject, check out "A Random Walk
Down Wall Street." one of the great contributions to the profession.
Where should one invest if interest rates
rise?
from Ajt
Q: Given all the talk about an increase in interest
rate soon, where do you think would be the best area to invest in a mutual fund with a 2-3
year investment in mind? Do you think a sector fund that invested in financial services
would be better off now? How about an international fund, maybe Latin America?
A: If your time horizon is that short, buy money
market funds, T-Bills, CD's, or very limited duration bonds (less than 2 years.) No one
should be in the equity market with money they need to use in less than 5 years.
If your long term strategy is to try to buy into sectors based on an
interest rate forcast, my opinion is that it cannot be done consistently enough to be
worth the effort, cost, and risk. The best experts on Wall Street have interest rate
forcast accuracy of about 30%.
Predicting interest rates is a tough game. Only one man knows what
the Chaiman of the Fed will do to short term rates, and he isn't telling.
What is your informed opinion on a market
correction?
from Joseph
Q: What is your informed opinion on a market
correction? When might it occur and what might the percentage drop be?
A: Every once in a while, the market dips,
stumbles, tumbles, falters, corrects, or crashes. These events are not nearly so much fun
as when the market surges ahead. However, they are part of the game.
Investing would be a lot better if we knew when these little
incidents were likely to occur. Occasionally these downturns are severe and costly.
My opinion about the timing of this next distressing event is worth
exactly zero. Or, perhaps less. There is plenty of evidence that forecasting the market
corrections is a total waste of time and energy. People who try generally get dismal
results.
If I knew which way the market was going (as opposed to just
guessing) I would mortgage everything I own, buy a few options, and sail away. You would
never hear from me again. I would be history! I wouldn't even finish answering your
question. The fact that I am still here ought to tell you that I don't believe it can be
done.
So, what should investors do?
If a known obligation fall due within the next five or so years,
they should hold enough in cash or very short term bonds to cover it. That way nothing bad
will happen to prevent you from meeting your obligation. (The obligation could either be a
lump sum or income requirement.)
The rest of your investments can be considered long term in nature.
You should train yourself to disregard (as much as possible - sometimes it can be tough!)
the short term fluctuations, and keep your focus on the long term goal.
A diversified asset allocation plan may soften the blow. However,
when the bear comes to the picnic, he eats everybody's lunch. For instance, if the US
market tanks 500 to 1000 points, you can bet that other markets will feel the pain in the
short run. So, just because you have a good asset allocation plan don't think you are
immune from risk.
But, after the initial shock, many of the other markets may go about
doing what they were doing before. There is no convincing evidence that long term
correlations between international markets are increasing. For instance the Japanese
market, one of the largest in the world, has crashed worse than our market did in 1929,
and the rest of the world has not crashed with them.
I freely admit, this is not a wonderful approach. But, it's the best
that we can do. This approach has only a single advantage: if applied with discipline, it
works!
How do you know when to get out of a fund?
from Dave
Q: I have been putting $100 a month into Strong
Discovery Fund for a year. The past year the return was 1-2%. I think I could do better
somewhere else. Any thoughts?
A: You have encountered the classic problem faced
by investors chasing last year's heroes.
Awhile ago, Strong could do no wrong. He was on a roll. His Public
Relations machine was cranked up full, and Strong was being showered with money. Lots of
investors viewed the short term over-performance as an indication of superior skill and
cunning. So, of course they bought just as the roll was coming to an end. Clearly a losing
game.
Now, of course, they have seen the error of their ways. It appears
that Strong was just plain lucky, had a few good calls, and burned his luck out.
What could we have learned?
1. Temporary over-performance may be just a fluke, and chasing
yesterday's hero is a losers game, or,
2. Strong was not a great man (a man whose stocks go up), but just a
charlatan (a man whose stocks do not go up).
If 1., we should consider an asset class, asset allocation approach
to investing. This approach will lead to a low-cost, low risk portfolio with the highest
probability of long term success.
If 2., we should seek out a truly great man (perhaps Van Wagoner?).
This approach has never worked very well in the past, and there is no reason to believe
that it will work any better in the future. You can expect to repeat your mistake of
buying high, selling low, and wondering what happened to your investment plan.
Most investors will chose plan 2. Old habits die hard, and hope
springs eternal in the heart of ignorant superstitious investors.
A few investors will abandon a proven losing proposition, study up
on what has been happening in finance for the last forty years, and then adopt a
reasonable, realistic, well researched approach to solving the investment problem. These
unfortunates will have to settle for only top quartile long term performance, and abandon
any hope of impressing the crowd with their keen insight at cocktail parties. "Money
Magazine" will disdain their efforts, and the old adrenaline rush that comes with
attempts to outguess the market will recede into a distant memory. They may actually have
to go out and get a life, spend more time with their families and friends, and forego the
Friday afternoon ritual of "Wall Street Week."
The choice is yours. May I suggest, before you make that choice you
check out "Bogle on Mutual Funds", "Capital Ideas", and "A Random
Walk down Wall Street" at your local library.
How and where does one find a reliable
advisor?
from Robert
Q: How does one discern the con-artist or a fee
maximizing investment house broker from a reliable investment advisor looking out for my
interest first? How and where does one find that reliable advisor?
A: This is a difficult problem, and I have devoted
an entire chapter later in my book to the selection of financial advisors.
While I believe that there are lots of honest brokers, I don't
believe that the system necessarily encourages the best possible outcome for investors.
Whenever you have gross conflicts of interest combined with inadequate disclosure, you can
bet that somebody is going to be victimized.
If we look at the abuses that investors suffer, a common thread that
unites them is the compensation system. There would be no incentive to push proprietary
product, churn accounts, peddle high cost offerings, or recommend inappropriate
investments without a commission structure that encouraged it.
So, why take the risk? You can avoid all of these problems by
selecting a fee-only advisor. The enormous growth of the fee-only advisor service happened
because investors are not comfortable with the old churn-and-burn commissioned-crazed
brokerage compensation system.
Of course, you still must do your homework whenever selecting an
advisor. Here are some of the other areas you should investigate:
Check with the SEC and NASD for a history of regulatory problems.
Thoroughly read and understand the advisor's disclosure statement. Ask about education and
professional designations (Certified Financial Planner, Chartered Life Underwriter,
Certified Financial Analyst, etc.). Inquire about the number of continuing education
credits the advisor has had in the last couple of years.
Negotiate a reasonable fee for the size and complexity of your
investments. Make sure you understand and agree with the advisor's investment policy and
philosophy. Always demand that your assets be held in your name and that you receive
statements directly from the custodian. Never grant an unlimited power of attorney to an
advisor; instead, use a limited power of attorney to authorize the advisor to trade your
account.
Require an Investment Policy Statement which outlines the
procedures, responsibilities and details of how your account will be administered. Find
out who will be responsible for investing your account, the advisor or one of the staff.
Determine how much access you will have to the advisor for questions and concerns after
you open the account.
Review a sample report to see if it is clear and understandable. Ask
how often you can expect reports, and how often you can review your results with the
advisor. Find out how long the advisor has been in business, and how much in assets he
directs.
Finally, if you don't feel comfortable and confident in the advisor,
walk.
Where can I get mutual fund predictions?
from Bobra
Q: Is there a website that gives educated
predictions on categories of mutual funds, such as high-risk overseas stocks and health
bonds, etc.? I just rolled my 20 years of profit sharing into a 401K mutual fund and after
three months, I've lost money. I need a place I can go to make me feel like things are
going to get better. Even semi-long term predictions are better than nothing.
A: There are plenty of projections, some
"educated", but none reliable. In fact, IMHO, a prediction is worth far less
than nothing. Trying to predict which sector is liable to be next week's or quarter's
winner is a sucker's game. It's pointless to build a strategy around something that can't
be done (i.e., predicting the future).
On the other hand, you can have a high degree of confidence that an
appropriate asset allocation plan with wide diversification, and low cost will lead to
successful investment results over the long haul. (Three months is not the long haul!)
There are lots of great resources here at MFI to help investors
better understand the game. Another great place to check out is the library at
www.vanguard.com. Trek over to your local library and get "Bogle on Mutual
Funds", "A Random Walk down Wall Street" and "Capital Ideas".
Shame on you if you invest another penny before you have read all three.
Your investments ARE your future! It's a crime to throw 20 years of
Profit Sharing into a rollover without a well thought out plan. Few of us can afford to
roll the dice with that much at stake. I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who
make huge investments with less research and care than they use to plan a vacation.
You can become a successful investor. But, it's going to take some
time to educate yourself. You can't afford not to.
Why do Indian funds have negative
yields when the companies have high profits and growing dividends?
from Annanya
Q: I am doing some rsearch on fundholdings in India
by large AMCs like Jardine Fleming, Templeton etc. It seems that all of these funds have a
negative 1 year and 3 year returns, with high (predicted) 5 year retruns. When I look into
the actual Indian companies in which these funds have holdings, I find that these cos have
high profits and growing dividends. How is it possible that the funds are getting negative
yields? Is it because of foreign exchange? But the Indian currency has not risen so much.
A: Your question ranks right up there with
"the meaning of life" for difficulty. I am not sure anyone is qualified to give
you a complete answer. You have hit on the problem that makes all of us in the investment
business crazy.
Almost everybody agrees that in the very long term, stock prices are
driven by profits. As the value of the worlds economy increases, it is expected that the
value of the companies which make up the economy should also increase. Not much
controversy here, right? This linkage appears entirely rational to me.
But in the shorter run, markets feel no obligation to move in lock
step with profits, or much of anything else. There is a much less rational component to
stock prices on a day to day, year to year basis. Lots of factors contribute to how
markets price stock besides current profits.
In trying to determine how to price stocks, investors must forecast
future events, and future profits. Since the future can't be known, investors must examine
a full range of possible scenarios, and assign probabilities to each. In theory, at least,
investors then discount the entire stream of future benefits which they anticipate from
owning a stock, to arrive at a present value for the stock. The consensus view then
determines stock prices via a supply-demand interaction.
If the future were known, investors rational, and the discount
factor constant there would be no problem. In fact, none of these conditions exist. News
dribbles in constantly changing investor's future expectations. Investors overreact to
both good and bad news. As either euphoria or gloom sweeps a market, the discount factor
changes. Prices rise and fall with little apparent regard to underlying fundamentals.
In the short run it looks like chaos. In the longer term, the
excesses tend to self correct. Capital markets and stock prices can be described as having
both a central trend, and variation. The central trend is often projected as
"expected return", and the variation is called risk.
In the case of emerging markets like India, investors are aware of
both high potential for growth, and increased risk. While India has many advantages, there
are undeniable threats to domestic tranquility, and a government not fully committed to
free markets. To induce investors to bear those risks, the discount factor is high, and
that translates to high expected returns. Another way of putting it would be to say that
the cost of capital is high for India, and that investors are well advised to expect
liberal doses of risk.
However, as noted, markets have no feeling of obligation to produce
our projected return. They appear to have a mind and soul of their own. Even if our
projections turn out to be dead right, fundamental economics (ie rising profits) can be
often overshadowed by other concerns. Political risks, rising interest rates, even
forecast weather can impact markets for extended periods before the self correction
occurs. In this respect, India is no different than New York.
As you have observed, India has provided dismal returns for
investors over the last three years. These returns cannot be explained by currency
variations. The simple answer is that the Indian market is down. We cannot know now
whether this reflects an accurate forecast of fundamental economic decline, or just the
normal flaky behavior that all markets exhibit.
My own feeling, for what little it is worth, is that India will
richly reward long term investors willing to endure the risks. While risks are high, it's
probably worth one or two percent of any diversified equity portfolio.
I'm sure that's not a satisfactory answer. But, that's the way life
is sometimes, especially in the investment business.
How do I interpret Morningstar's
9-style-box system?
from Victor
Q: I have investments in 3 areas: 401K plan at
work, IRA at Fidelity, and 5 single mutual funds. Total of about $175K. I plan to first
determine my present asset allocation, and then come up with a plan. I hope to be able to
choose the best fund available in each area.
My best source of information about fund holdings has been the
Morningstar reports at my local library. My question is about using their style data. How
do I interpret their 9-style-box system into 4 quadrants? For example, Vanguard Index 500
is listed as Large Blend. Would you split this 50/50 between Large Growth and Large Value,
or lump it in with Large Growth? Similarly, I have 2 Midcap funds. Split 50/50 between the
Large and Small categories, or lump with one of them?
A: You are on the right track. If you are working
with only hard copy from Morningstar, split the categories 50/50 between large/small and
growth/value. If you can get your hands on the Principia on CD, then you could sort by
average market cap for size, and Price/Book for Growth/Value. This will give you much more
precise information about the characteristics you need to control within your asset
allocation plan.
- copyright (c) 1995-97, Frank Armstrong.
The right to download and store or output the materials
found in Investment Strategies for the 21st Century is granted for viewing use
only, and materials may not be reproduced in any form without the express written
permission of Frank Armstrong. Any reproduction or editing by any means mechanical or
electronic in whole or in part without the express written permission of Frank Armstrong
is strictly prohibited.
Comments? Criticism? Suggestions? Talk to us.Disclaimer: Brill Editorial Services provides Mutual Funds Interactive as a service to Internet users. We do not imply approval of listed destinations, warrant the accuracy of any information set out in those destinations, or endorse any opinions expressed therein. The author is not a financial advisor, and the material presented is for informational purposes only and does not imply an endorsement of the funds mentioned. Information is deemed accurate as of the dates indicated. Any questions or comments regarding this policy or Mutual Funds Interactive should be directed to BES. Like Mutual Funds Interactive, other Internet destinations operate under the auspices and at the direction of their owners, who should be contacted directly with questions regarding those sites.