How is “The People's Trust” not just another Investment Trust?
"According to what little information is available currently, this fund is most akin to an actively managed exchange traded fund rather than an investment trust. An investment trust is an actively managed, closed-end fund that is tradeable on the stock market.  ""Closed-end"" means that there are a fixed number of shares available for trading, so if you wish to buy or sell shares in a closed-end fund you need to find someone willing to sell or buy shares.  ""Actively managed"" means that the assets are selected by the fund managers in the belief that they will perform well.  This is in contrast to a ""passively managed"" fund which simply tracks an underlying index.   The closed-end nature of investment trusts means that the share price is not well correlated to the value of the underlying assets.  Indeed, almost all UK investment trusts trade at a significant discount to their net asset value.  This reflects their historic poor performance and relatively weak liquidity.  Of course there are some exceptions to this. Examples of open-end funds are unit trust (US = mutual funds) and ETFs (exchange traded funds).  They are ""open-end"" funds in the sense that the number of shares/units available will change according to demand.  Most importantly, the price of a share/unit will be strongly correlated to the net asset value of the underlying portfolio.  In general, for an open-end fund, if the net asset value of the fund is X and there are Y shares/units outstanding, then the price of a share/unit will be X/Y.  Historic data shows that passively managed funds (index trackers) ""always"" outperform actively managed funds in the long term.  One of the big issues with actively managed funds is they have relatively high management fees.  The Peoples Trust will be charging about 1% with a promise that this should come down over time.  Compare this to a fee of 0.05% on a large, major market index tracking ETF.  Further, the 1% headline fee being touted by Peoples Trust is a somewhat misleading, since they are paying their employees bonuses with shares in the fund.  This will cause dilution of the net asset value per share and can be read as addition management fees by proxy.  Since competent fund managers will demand high incomes, bonus shares could easily double the management fees, depending on the size of the fund. In summary, history has shown that the promises of active fund managers rarely (if ever) come to fruition. Personally, I would not consider this to be an attractive investment and would look more towards a passively managed major market index ETF with low management fees." "Well the People's Trust's IPO prospectus is now (2017-09-08) available for all to read (or there's a smaller ""information leaflet"").  (May need some disclaimers to be clicked to get access).  Both have a ""highlights"" bullet-point list: Coverage here has a comment thread with some responses by the founder attempting to answer the obvious objection that there's other multi-manager trusts on a discount (e.g Alliance Trust on ~ -5.5%), so why would you buy this one on a (very small) premium?  (Update: There's also another recent analysis here.) Personally, I'm thinking the answer to the original question ""How is The People's Trust not just another Investment Trust?"" is pretty much: ""it's just another Investment Trust"" (albeit one with its own particular quirks and goals).  But good luck to them."
"Just what exactly are you trying to do here?  Are you trying to defend Susan being the Chief Information Security because she could not learn Systems security?  &gt; and a C-level position requires administrative and personnel management skills and understanding of security policy, not specialized technical engineering knowledge of protocols, cryptography, etc.  Are you assuming or biased that any real security expert cannot do administrative and personnel management?   Trust me that if you can master the latest security protocols, you can do mundane ""administrative"" and ""personnel"" things.  Further, you can have great human and presentation skills.  &gt; (And not database lol.)  You also have no clue about security. FYI, all data is sitting in databases. And if you do not organize the databases correctly, you have no security. For example, social security numbers, masked, cannot be in the same database as personal information. Instead you have a pointer from the personal information the record of the socials security numbers in another database.  And just these two databases make life miserable for hackers because they have to steal data from two databases and correlate each one to the other.  So I know MUCH MUCH more than you about security. Don't challenge me in that respect.  &gt;&gt; she has no clue about security.  &gt; When have I ever defended her actions?   Just above, and constantly since day one.  &gt;&gt; So give me a possible way how Susan got her job.  &gt; Five years at HP, a year at Sun Trust Banks, four years at First Data Corporation  Do you realize that after she got her music degree, all those positions you listed she was ""Vice President""?  So again, how does Susan get all her jobs and titles? What could possibly be that she has such a meteoric rise in the corporate level? Pure talent and skills?  &gt;&gt; If contractors are more expensive than in-house employees, nobody will use contractors.  &gt; omg where to start. I'll just chalk that comment up to inexperience and lack of understanding of total staff costs over time.... point out that employees cost more over time, demonstrating the benefit of using contractors...)  Exactly! Contractors are cheaper than in-house staff which is what I said. Thanks for confirming that.  And you said that Contractors get paid more. No they are not, except real experts and almost exclusively in IT field." "Junk Bonds (aka High Yield bonds) are typically those bonds from issues with credit ratings below BBB-. Not all such companies are big risks. They are just less financially sound than other, higher rated, companies. If you are not comfortable doing the analysis yourself, you should consider investing in a mutual fund, ETF, or unit trust that invests in high yield bonds. You get access to ""better quality"" issues because a huge amount of the debt markets goes to the institutional channels, not to the retail markets. High yield (junk) bonds can make up a part of your portfolio, and are a good source of regular income. As always, you should diversify and not have everything you own in one asset class. There are no real rules of thumb for asset allocation -- it all depends on your risk tolerance, goals, time horizon, and needs. If you don't trust yourself to make wise decisions, consult with a professional whom you trust." "Read ""How to win friends and influence people"" by Dale Carnegie. Don't be fooled by the overly self-helpie title. It's a great book.   Then consider reading ""The speed of trust"" by Steven M R Covey.   I'm sure you'll settle in just fine. Good luck!" "&gt;I fucking hate it when I see another rich kid acting like they came from slums  Where did David Knopf claim he was from the slums? You got a source for that?  &gt;and worked their way up the ladder  How do you know he didn't? Life is a bell curve. Some people climb the ladder much faster than others. Some people may climb because of nepotism. Some people genuinely are better than most other people. You think everyone should rise up at the same pace? Move to Japan.  &gt;delusional twats much like yourself believe that you can earn anything with just some ""hard work bruh.""  Not just hard work, but also talent. If everyone works the same amount, those who are more talented will *generally* have more success. Of course, some is subject to chance, some people have a head start, etc., but in general, that's the way that the world has proven to work.  &gt;About every successful silicon valley startup such as Microsoft, Facebook, and Snapchat were founded by kids with very prominent parents.  Yeah, Microsoft. K. So Bill Gates grew up with upper middle class parents. Know what? So did a fucking *huge* amount of people. Know how many are as rich as Bill Gates? Fucking none of them. He had a head start, absolutely, but that doesn't take away his success. He's done more with what he was given than any of his peers, and likely more than anyone regardless of beginning income level could do.   Zuckerberg's dad was a dentist. Upper middle class, but if you're *really* being honest with yourself, you'd realize that there are almost 200k dentists in the US alone, and yet there aren't 200k multi billionaires. Hm.   Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, was the son of a professor who immigrated from Russia. Steve Jobs was the adopted child of two blue collar workers.  Of course, if we move out of just Silicon Valley, your narrative really, *really* falls apart, since Silicon Valley of course has a little bit of a lean towards the wealthy,  as computers aren't cheap and getting started in that arena requires the use of a computer.   [Take a look at billionaires in general](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2010-12-06/twenty-billionaires-who-started-with-nothing). Most billionaires [did not inherit their wealth](https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/self-made/#7d08bb1941cb). And, something like a [third](https://blog.adioma.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/from-poor-to-rich-billionare-infographic.jpg) of the richest billionaires came from 'poor' parents, in addition to simply not inheriting their wealth.  &gt;whats the fucking difference between someone who inherits their money and someone who practically has a trust fund?  A trust fund is a sort of an inheritance. I'm not sure why you're bringing this up?  &gt;Again he is not self made. He's just an extension of his parents achievements...  Source? I saw that someone who shares the name Knopf is wealthy (posted in this thread), but are those actually his parents? Do you have proof of that? Or are you just guessing that since he's made it to an executive position and shares the name of someone wealthy, that those are his parents? Further, *if* those are his parents, how does wealth from publishing transferring into a job at a consumer staples company work?  Why is your first assumption when you see someone successful that they had it handed to them? Why do you need to selectively choose a small subset of people (Silicon Valley startups) out of an already limited group (billionaires) to be able to even attempt to make your point?" You seem to think that the term “held”is used correctly. There lies your logical fallacy.   I made no such assumption. In my question I test both the use of the term “US economy” AND the term “held”.   It is obvious you can’t “hold” income but if you want to get down to technicalities, both asset and income/expenses are types of accounts while the notion of “trust” is a legal construct to limit the rights of external creditors. Lending of securities is done by institutional investors and mutual funds. The costs of dealing with thousands of individual investors, small share blocks and the various screw-ups and drama associated with each individual are too high. Like many exotic financial transactions, if you have to ask about it, you're probably not qualified to do it. Of course it is a dilution of existing shareholders. When you buy milk in the supermarket - don't you feel your wallet diluted a little? You give some $$$ you get milk in return. You give some shares, you get Watsapp in return. That's why such purchases must go through certain process of approval - board of directors (shareholders' representatives) must approve it, and in some cases (don't know if in this particular) - the whole body of the shareholders vote on the deal. Exactly.  Stock is a liquid asset and is almost like cash.     By that reasoning, a Democratic Governor could threaten to permanently close down Trump properties due to labour, health and safety, and food safety laws and that is all OK because it does matter until the property is actually sold off when the lost is actualised.    Trump came into office as supposedly pro-business but this is third world style abuse.   Trump does not give one damn about protecting consumers from a supposed monopoly.   This is purely a political move.