Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Army Times Watch: The Right Hand Doesn't Know What the Left Hand is Whitewashing
From an Army Times email to a reader, which was obtained by IraqNow:
We have written about First Command several times. My impression is that if
I was an investor, I am not sure I would go with them, but for those
military folks who have, and - this is critical - intend to stay with them
for the long haul, they are not being taken advantage of. We have said as
much, I think, in the stories we've done. I would not say categorically that
First Command takes advantage of troops, but they should know what they are
getting into because of the front-end costs.
(March 5th, 2004)
But here's an October 30, 2002 Army Times article on mutual fund loads, written by Edward A. Zundworfer, "special to the Times:"
However, as some military people have discovered, the “upfront” commission on an initial purchase in a mutual fund may be as large as 50 percent. One financial planning firm sold mutual funds to clients with a 50 percent sales charge on the first year’s purchase. However, the firm imposes no sales charges on investments in later years.
Unfortunately, such plans are not a good deal for investors.
Link. (Subscription required.)
Now, why didn't the Army Times specify what company they were referring to? Isn't specificity in reporting a good thing?
Wouldn't Army Times readers benefit from knowing that the 50% up-front sales loads charged specifically by First Command "are not a good deal for investors?"
Why not name names? Why not ask Zundorfer to specify what company he's talking about, and then invite a response from First Command themselves?
Were Army Times editors simply unaware of the First Command fee structure?
No, because they claim to have written about them several times.
Yes, sticking with an investment plan for the long term is critical. Army Times coverage of First Command isn't.
Meanwhile, Army Times continues to collect up to $24,200 a week from First Command's advertising coffers.
And so it goes...
Splash, out
Jason
We have written about First Command several times. My impression is that if
I was an investor, I am not sure I would go with them, but for those
military folks who have, and - this is critical - intend to stay with them
for the long haul, they are not being taken advantage of. We have said as
much, I think, in the stories we've done. I would not say categorically that
First Command takes advantage of troops, but they should know what they are
getting into because of the front-end costs.
(March 5th, 2004)
But here's an October 30, 2002 Army Times article on mutual fund loads, written by Edward A. Zundworfer, "special to the Times:"
However, as some military people have discovered, the “upfront” commission on an initial purchase in a mutual fund may be as large as 50 percent. One financial planning firm sold mutual funds to clients with a 50 percent sales charge on the first year’s purchase. However, the firm imposes no sales charges on investments in later years.
Unfortunately, such plans are not a good deal for investors.
Link. (Subscription required.)
Now, why didn't the Army Times specify what company they were referring to? Isn't specificity in reporting a good thing?
Wouldn't Army Times readers benefit from knowing that the 50% up-front sales loads charged specifically by First Command "are not a good deal for investors?"
Why not name names? Why not ask Zundorfer to specify what company he's talking about, and then invite a response from First Command themselves?
Were Army Times editors simply unaware of the First Command fee structure?
No, because they claim to have written about them several times.
Yes, sticking with an investment plan for the long term is critical. Army Times coverage of First Command isn't.
Meanwhile, Army Times continues to collect up to $24,200 a week from First Command's advertising coffers.
And so it goes...
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Post a Comment
