When a fund drops significantly, how can I research what went wrong? [duplicate]
"Usually there are annual or semi-annual reports for a mutual fund that may give an idea for when a fund will have ""distributions"" which can cause the NAV to fall as this is when the fund passes the taxable liabilities to shareholders in the form of a dividend. Alternatively, the prospectus of the fund may also have the data on the recent distribution history that is likely what you want. If you don't understand why a fund would have a distribution, I highly suggest researching the legal structure of an open-end mutual fund where there more than a few rules about how taxes are handled for this case."
"I got a BA in Econ from a mid-tier public school in CA, and I graduated near the trough of the great recession, so my experience may not represent what current and future graduates can expect. It took a couple of years of shit-jobs, but I eventually got into banking (a matter of who-you-know) and after almost 5 years I couldn't stand it anymore so I am starting my MS in Econ at an also mid-tier public CA school. I can't compare to CS, and my advice will differ from robolib's:  1. Never assume that jobs will we thrown at you, especially a job that you actually want, like, and will make a career. The job market is strong and you ought to be able to get an entry level analyst position if you can show you have strong econometrics. Many schools require you to do a research paper for your senior seminar (instead of a graduation exam) I recommend to choose a topic with good data available.  2. All the government jobs I've looked at required at least a Master's. That said, the ROI on a Phd is rarely worth it if you have to take on debt to do it. You MIGHT be able to get your foot in the door with a Bachelor's but you won't be able to progress up the job ladder. I suggest being a little more open-minded about potential employers, there are way more options when you consider consulting or business development for larger corporations.  3. Economics majors make the most out of the social scientists by far, last I checked it was 60-80k (depending on local market, obv.) but I imagine that trails CS majors significantly. You should be able to afford a decent standard of living in either field, so certainly consider more on the basis of what kind of work you get the most satisfaction from.  4. With an undergrad degree you will start in local government. You may then be able to jump to State and then Federal levels after 5-10 years experience, but still may find it difficult if you forgo the Master's. I have not personally worked as an ""economist"" but I do know you will spend a lot of time searching for/collecting data, writing or using statistical analysis programs to process it, and writing up your reports.  5. Go search ""analyst"" on Indeed.com and you'll find myriad positions in everything from finance, to marketing, to supply chain, etc. which ask for degrees in business, finance, ""or other related field (economics).""  In my opinion, the prestige of the university from which you graduate is secondary to the work you do.  Assuming you do a research paper, if it is kick-ass it won't matter much if you went to Harvard or not. Check your city/county jobs site for internship opportunities since no matter what, even getting an entry level job can be difficult if you've never had any job experience in the field (or related field).  Labor economics is big since there's a lot of good data and it is a hot topic. Personally, I'm focusing on urban economics, real estate, planning, and transportation. The beauty of Econ is that it is so broad you can almost do whatever you want. But the drawback is that it is so broad it can be tough to show employers that you possess the specific skills and knowledge that make you desirable.  Hope this helps!" The issue is how likely you will have zero income for six months, and what are your monthly expenses. If you know the maximum medical bill you face that may allow you to save a smaller amount. But you still have to protect for that loss of income. The interuption could be because of job loss, medical emergency, or other family crisis.  If I told you that  the chances you would face a crisis dropped by 50%, would you decide that the need for an emergency fund went away? Or would you still create a fund? I think the need still exists just to avoid the downside if you aren't prepared. In addition to what quid said, I think your risk tolerance should depend on how likely you are to need the funds in the near future. Say that you have $100k saved up and you want to decide how to invest it. Then you should ask yourself: The idea here is that if you invest say in stocks (high risk) then the value of your position could drop significantly and you'd potentially have to wait for a long time before it recovers. If you are forced to sell you could make a substantial loss. If you don't urgently need this cash, however, then you can feel relaxed and just wait for the market to reverse again. This is viewing risk through the lens of how likely it is that you'll have to wait a long time to get a substantial amount of your money back, which itself is a function of how likely it is for a substantial downturn to occur in a certain market. "The answer to your question depends very much on your definition of ""long-term"". Because let's make something clear: an investment horizon of three to six months is not long term. And you need to consider the length of time from when an ""emergency"" develops until you will need to tap into the money. Emergencies almost by definition are unplanned. When talking about investment risk, the real word that should be used is volatility. Stocks aren't inherently riskier than bonds issued by the same company. They are likely to be a more volatile instrument, however. This means that while stocks can easily gain 15-20 percent or more in a year if you are lucky (as a holder), they can also easily lose just as much (which is good if you are looking to buy, unless the loss is precipitated by significantly weaker fundamentals such as earning lookout). Most of the time stocks rebound and regain lost valuation, but this can take some time. If you have to sell during that period, then you lose money. The purpose of an emergency fund is generally to be liquid, easily accessible without penalties, stable in value, and provide a cushion against potentially large, unplanned expenses. If you live on your own, have good insurance, rent your home, don't have any major household (or other) items that might break and require immediate replacement or repair, then just looking at your emergency fund in terms of months of normal outlay makes sense. If you own your home, have dependents, lack insurance and have major possessions which you need, then you need to factor those risks into deciding how large an emergency fund you might need, and perhaps consider not just normal outlays but also some exceptional situations. What if the refrigerator and water heater breaks down at the same time that something breaks a few windows, for example? What if you also need to make an emergency trip near the same time because a relative becomes seriously ill? Notice that the purpose of the emergency fund is specifically not to generate significant interest or dividend income. Since it needs to be stable in value (not depreciate) and liquid, an emergency fund will tend towards lower-risk and thus lower-yield investments, the extreme being cash or the for many more practical option of a savings account. Account forms geared toward retirement savings tend to not be particularly liquid. Sure, you can usually swap out one investment vehicle for another, but you can't easily withdraw your money without significant penalties if at all. Bonds are generally more stable in value than stocks, which is a good thing for a longer-term portion of an emergency fund. Just make sure that you are able to withdraw the money with short notice without significant penalties, and pick bonds issued by stable companies (or a fund of investment-grade bonds). However, in the present investment climate, this means that you are looking at returns not significantly better than those of a high-yield savings account while taking on a certain amount of additional risk. Bonds today can easily have a place if you have to pick some form of investment vehicle, but if you have the option of keeping the cash in a high-yield savings account, that might actually be a better option. Any stock market investments should be seen as investments rather than a safety net. Hopefully they will grow over time, but it is perfectly possible that they will lose value. If what triggers your financial emergency is anything more than local, it is certainly possible to have that same trigger cause a decline in the stock market. Money that you need for regular expenses, even unplanned ones, should not be in investments. Thus, you first decide how large an emergency fund you need based on your particular situation. Then, you build up that amount of money in a savings vehicle rather than an investment vehicle. Once you have the emergency fund in savings, then by all means continue to put the same amount of money into investments instead. Just make sure to, if you tap into the emergency fund, replenish it as quickly as possible." Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns failed before there ever was such a thing as a Systemically Important Financial Institution (SIFI).  OP's article and the study that it is based on are referring quite specifically to SIFI's, not every bank in American history. "I hope a wall of text with citations qualifies as ""relatively easy."" Many of these studies are worth quoting at length. Long story short, a great deal of research has found that actively-managed funds underperform market indexes and passively-managed funds because of their high turnover and higher fees, among other factors.  Longer answer: Chris is right in stating that survivorship bias presents a problem for such research; however, there are several academic papers that address the survivorship problem, as well as the wider subject of active vs. passive performance. I'll try to provide a brief summary of some of the relevant literature.  The seminal paper that started the debate is Michael Jensen's 1968 paper titled ""The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945-1964"". This is the paper where Jensen's alpha, the ubiquitous measure of the performance of mutual fund managers, was first defined. Using a dataset of 115 mutual fund managers, Jensen finds that The evidence on mutual fund performance indicates not only that these 115 mutual funds were on average not able to predict security prices well enough to outperform a buy-the-market-and-hold policy, but also that there is very little evidence that any individual fund was able to do significantly better than that which we expected from mere random chance. Although this paper doesn't address problems of survivorship, it's notable because, among other points, it found that managers who actively picked stocks performed worse even when fund expenses were ignored. Since actively-managed funds tend to have higher expenses than passive funds, the actual picture looks even worse for actively managed funds. A more recent paper on the subject, which draws similar conclusions, is Martin Gruber's 1996 paper ""Another puzzle: The growth in actively managed mutual funds"". Gruber calls it ""a puzzle"" that investors still invest in actively-managed funds, given that their performance on average has been inferior to that of index funds. He addresses survivorship bias by tracking funds across the entire sample, including through mergers. Since most mutual funds that disappear are merged into existing funds, he assumes that investors in a fund that disappear choose to continue investing their money in the fund that resulted from the merger. Using this assumption and standard measures of mutual fund performance, Gruber finds that mutual funds underperform an appropriately weighted average of the indices by about 65 basis points per year. Expense ratios for my sample averaged 113 basis points a year. These numbers suggest that active management adds value, but that mutual funds charge the investor more than the value added. Another nice paper is Mark Carhart's 1997 paper ""On persistence in mutual fund performance"" uses a sample free of survivorship bias because it includes ""all known equity funds over this period."" It's worth quoting parts of this paper in full: I demonstrate that expenses have at least a one-for-one negative impact on fund performance, and that turnover also negatively impacts performance. ... Trading reduces performance by approximately 0.95% of the trade's market value.  In reference to expense ratios and other fees, Carhart finds that The investment costs of expense ratios, transaction costs, and load fees all have a direct, negative impact on performance. The study also finds that funds with abnormally high returns last year usually have higher-than-expected returns next year, but not in the following years, because of momentum effects. Lest you think the news is all bad, Russ Wermer's 2000 study ""Mutual fund performance: An empirical decomposition into stock‐picking talent, style, transactions costs, and expenses"" provides an interesting result. He finds that many actively-managed mutual funds hold stocks that outperform the market, even though the net return of the funds themselves underperforms passive funds and the market itself.  On a net-return level, the funds underperform broad market indexes by one percent a year. Of the 2.3% difference between the returns on stock holdings and the net returns of the funds, 0.7% per year is due to the lower average returns of the nonstock holdings of the funds during the period (relative to stocks). The remaining 1.6% per year is split almost evenly between the expense ratios and the transaction costs of the funds. The final paper I'll cite is a 2008 paper by Fama and French (of the Fama-French model covered in business schools) titled, appropriately, ""Mutual Fund Performance"". The paper is pretty technical, and somewhat above my level at this time of night, but the authors state one of their conclusions bluntly quite early on: After costs (that is, in terms of net returns to investors) active investment is a negative sum game.  Emphasis mine. In short, expense ratios, transaction costs, and other fees quickly diminish the returns to active investment. They find that The [value-weight] portfolio of mutual funds that invest primarily in U.S. equities is close to the market portfolio, and estimated before fees and expenses, its alpha is close to zero. Since the [value-weight] portfolio of funds produces an α close to zero in gross returns, the alpha estimated on the net returns to investors is negative by about the amount of fees and expenses. This implies that the higher the fees, the farther alpha decreases below zero. Since actively-managed mutual funds tend to have higher expense ratios than passively-managed index funds, it's safe to say that their net return to the investor is worse than a market index itself. I don't know of any free datasets that would allow you to research this, but one highly-regarded commercial dataset is the CRSP Survivor-Bias-Free US Mutual Fund Database from the Center for Research in Security Prices at the University of Chicago. In financial research, CRSP is one of the ""gold standards"" for historical market data, so if you can access that data (perhaps for a firm or academic institution, if you're affiliated with one that has access), it's one way you could run some numbers yourself." It means someone's getting paid too much. I'd check the sharpe ratio and compare that to similar funds along with their expense ratio. So in some scenarios it's not necessarily a bad thing but being informed is the important thing In your own example of VW, it dropped from its peak price of $253 to $92. If you had invested $10,000 in VW in April 2015, by September of that year it would have gone down to $3,600. If you held on to your investment, you would now be getting back to $6,700 on that original $10,000 investment. Your own example demonstrates that it is possible to lose. I have a friend who put his fortune into a company called WorldCom (one of the examples D Stanley shared). He actually lost all of his retirement. Luckily he made some money back when the startup we both worked for was sold to a much larger company. Unsophisticated investors lose money all the time by investing in individual companies. Your best bet is to start searching this site for answers on how to invest your money so that you can see actual strategies that reduce your investment risk. Here's a starting point: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? If you want to better illustrate this principle to yourself, try this stock market simulation game.