Why are fund managers' average/minimum purchase price from form 13F the same?
The GuruFocus Link is just reporting the high and low price of the quarter.  Price Range (Average) – The estimated trade prices. The average price   is calculated from the time weighted average during the period. If no   price range is shown, the trade prices are estimated trade prices,   which are more accurate estimates. AAPL: $420.05 - $549.03 ($467.26) The numbers for the high and low match what I found for AAPL on Yahoo Finance. Keep in mind their definition uses estimate 3 times.
I'm a bit skeptical of some of the views the author states, in particular:  &gt; The likelihood of executing a trade at the best price depends on the length of the queue to buy or sell and the incentives to trade. Longer queues lead to longer delays to execute a trade. Delays typically lead to worse outcomes. Quite simply, it makes no sense to wait on a longer line to receive a worse execution.  Why would this be the case? If anything, I'd think that forcing through too many orders at once risks price slippage created by excess supply or demand. He argues that waiting in queue may impair price performance, but I'd think that possible favourable or adverse shifts in the price will average to zero over time.  If this is the case and they do average to zero, then I think funds are doing the savvy thing by putting relatively small, low-priority trades in to the flow at a rate that saves the most money on average. I can see why day traders may not be too thrilled with this, but that is such a small slice of the mutual fund/brokerage clientele.  In the broader picture, funds and brokerages are being squeezed so tightly on expense ratios that I'd think any cost saving/rebates they do get probably filter back to customers in the form of reduced fees. Take Robinhood as an example: they use their trading rebates to provide an extremely low cost trading platform for retail investors. That hardly seems unfair to me.  Any traders care to comment? This is all just speculation on my part and I've not looked at any time series data yet. In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered.  For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated.  The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too. "Wow... where to start...  Your ad hominem attack was when you shifted away from the discussion and started questioning me on whether or not I had been around low-skilled workers and even going as far as to give a judgment on if was around average people. The definition is ""(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."" You went away from the topic, and instead directed your argument at me, which has nothing to do with my position on minimum wage. You seek to discredit me as to say my views are invalid because, in your opinion, I haven't had enough experience with low skill workers. It doesn't matter if I have or hadn't, one's experience or lack thereof with low skilled workers doesn't make their position any more wrong or right. This is a textbook example of ad hominem.  Your straw man was when you shifted the position to suggest things I didn't say in order to argue against them. The definition is ""an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."" You say I assumed things I never even mentioned, such as your claim that I would say rich people didn't earn their success and that poor people were not at fault for their low achievement. Once again, no where did I suggest this and this suggestion by you strayed away from my argument on paying people a live-able wage. Basically one could say this was brought up by you to argue about something you felt would be easier to defeat.  There were clear reasons I threw those fallacies out. You condescendingly tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, yet you don't even get it right and overlook everything that was stated... smh  Your whole response keeps proving my point. Once again, you are so focused on whether I've had experience working with or managing people (nice goal post moving btw), as if that makes your position more qualified (ad hominem again), when the reality is I can have a rational thought about something by reading up on logical and rational positions on this and seeing what the statistics and research say. Oh by the way, I have had multiple economics classes in college, did you? I read up and studied this stuff and aced my tests and papers on it. So now what? Does my collegiate-backed economics understanding now outweigh the fact you just simply hired some low skilled workers?  There are many topics out there you and I have no experience with but we can have a well thought out position on them because we talk to experts and read up on the research. Let me restate this again, just because you have more experience with low skill labor does not make you any more qualified over me to have a smart, logical, and rational understanding of the effects of raising the minimum wage. The same with the fact that just because I probably have had more collegiate studies on economics than you, it doesn't mean my position is any more right than yours or someone else's.  &gt;You read a study that is incredibly biased and take it to the grave.  This gave me a laugh because it's the equivalent of ""your arguments don't agree with mine so clearly your's is the biased one."" Dude, we all are biased and stand for things. You are just as biased as me. I don't have to give equal time to every position out there as if both are equal. It's often a false equivalence to do so anyways. For example the idea that ""we should not raise minimum wage more because poor people are lazy and undeserving"" does not deserve the same consideration as ""inflation has caused the purchasing power of workers on the minimum wage to decrease to levels where they cannot afford to live and thus now must seek out tax-payer backed public assistance programs in order to make ends meet, so a solution would be to raise the minimum wage.""  Last, your argument against raising the minimum wage comes down to ""I don't think they deserve it because some people don't work hard."" And my response is, I don't give a shit. If someone works that job, no matter how low-skilled it is, they deserve to be paid at a level that is live-able. Other than that, it's their fault if they don't do a good job and get fired.  Have you ever considered why the minimum wage came about in the first place? It was to keep businesses in check because they were taking advantage of people and paying them poor wages. Wages were so low that some would argue they were technically ""slave wages."" Yet as inflation rises and the purchasing power falls, instead of bumping those wages back up, people like you sit there and are like ""Nah, they are lazy and don't deserve it. Trust me. I know a guy that's lazy that works those jobs. He's dumb too and doesn't have a high school diploma."" You argument one again is just attacking their character with no consideration of statistical analysis and the economic effect of a change in the minimum wage.   Now to step away from the whole argument, you and I have different values. You don't value people at low-skilled levels, as if their job is almost worthless, yet you need them for your business. Sure, you smile and say hello to the guy that brings you your burger or your coffee, but the reality is you mostly don't care about him. In your mind, if he only makes $7.25 then you have the right to assume that he doesn't work hard and is undeserving of proper pay, unless he's proven it in some way to you. Your mindset is a problem because you are okay with stereotyping people, and then you assume whatever negative traits about them that you can as your justification for it.  *I don't give a shit about how many houses have been built in Houston or how many painters your friend brought to Seattle. It's completely irrelevant to all of this." "First note that CIBC issued these bonds with a zero coupon, so they do not pay any interest.  They were purchased by the market participants at a small premium, paying an average of 100.054 for a nominal value of 100.  This equates to a negative annual ""redemption"" yield of 0.009% - i.e., if held until maturity, then the holder will witness a negative annual return of 0.009%. You ask ""why does this make sense?"".  Clearly it makes no sense for a private individual to purchase these bonds since they will be better off simply holding cash.  To understand why there is a demand for these bonds we need to look elsewhere. The European bond market is currently suffering a dwindling supply owing to the ECBs bond buying programme (i.e., quantitative easing).  The ECB is purchasing EUR 80 billion per month of Eurozone sovereign debt.  This means that the quantity of high grade bonds available for purchase is shrinking fast. Against this backdrop we have all of those European institutions and financial corporations who are legally obliged to purchase bonds to be held as assets against their obligations.  These are mostly national and private pension funds as well as insurance companies and fund managers.   In this sort of environment, the price of high quality bonds is quickly bid up to the point where we see negative yields. In this environment companies like CIBC can borrow by issuing bonds with a zero coupon and the market is willing to pay a small premium over their nominal value. TL/DR The situation is further complicated by the subdued inflation outlook for the Eurozone, with a very real possibility of deflation.  Should a prolonged period of deflation materialise, then negative redemption yield bonds may provide a positive real return." "This can be answered by looking at the fine print for any prospectus for any stock, bond or mutual fund. It says: ""Past performance is not an indicator of future performance."". A mutual fund is a portfolio of common stocks, managed by somebody for a fee. There are many factors that can drive performance of a fund up or down. Here are a few:  I'm sure there are many more market influences that I cannot think of that push fund prices up or down. What the fund did last year is not one of them. If it were, making money in the mutual fund market would be as easy as investing in last year's winners and everyone would be doing it." "Loads may be widespread but they are absolutely not an ""industry standard"".  Almost every major provider of mutual funds has ""no load"" funds. I'm sure your bank wants you to buy the funds with front loads, but they can't force you to buy those funds (unless you sign such a disclaimer when you open the account). What your bank can do is charge their own transaction fees for ""third-party"" funds, and those may end up being as much as or more than the funds' own loads. I don't know which bank you have, but many banks have their own mutual funds that have no loads or other transaction fees.  Essentially you can rearrange your portfolio however you want (within reason) at no cost as long as you buy and sell their funds exclusively.  But of course every bank is different, and in many cases those funds will perform poorly compared to investment companies like Vanguard.  Of course every mutual fund must report its performance so you can always check that yourself. If your bank refuses to let you buy any no-load mutual funds (even ones that they run themselves) and/or wants to charge you steep transaction fees in order to discourage buying them, then may I suggest a different bank? FYI, mutual funds generally ""make their money"" on management fees.  If a fund advertises a load but a particularly low management fee, it may actually be worth buying compared to another fund with no load and a high management fee, if you don't expect to be buying and selling frequently.  On the other hand, if a fund has a high management fee and a high load, it's probably garbage." On July 20, when you posted this question, AAPL was trading almost at 115.  The market charges an extra premium for buying an option that is in the money (or on the money like this case) over one that is out of the money.  In order for the 130 Call to be worth something the market has to go up 15 points. Otherwise you lose 100% of your premium. On the other hand with the 115 every point that the market goes up means that you recover some of that premium. It is much more likely that you recover part of your premium with the 115 than with the 130.  With the higher probability of losing part of the premium, the sellers are going to be reluctant to write the option unless they receive larger compensation. And it's only as cheap as 1.78% if you stay with them 10 years! They'd love that. You can kind of tell they really want to lock you in for over 4 years. I also think it's daylight robbery, but as a self execution investor I tend to have to talk myself out of that belief by default to be fair. One can wonder too, why are there even 2 fixed (percentage wise) fees? They are desperate not to have one number that is too big sounding, either the advisor fee is a rip off because they have to do all the same analysis regardless, or you could take the view that it's the only valid fee as you're paying for a slice of something, where as the other fee is what? A share of the fixed costs? Well, isn't advising as essential as anything else? I actually think Nutmeg is OK, I've not used them or dealt with them in any way but they are, to a greater or lesser degree, what I've wished for to recommend to friends who don't want to DIY, which is a cheaper next generation online investment facility, and their fees drop significantly over 100K. Going by their claimed past performance and fee structure, whilst I'd like them to be cheaper, I personally think they are not a bad choice in the market.