Insight On Investing: Ecclesiastes 11:1-6 With Illustrations (Translation, Commentary, Application)


Translation



      1.	Send off (Piel = an acute release of what once was held closely, T.W.O.T., v. II, p. 928) your bread
 		upon the face of the waters (the same prep. phrase is used of the ride of Noah's ark on the giant flood
 		waters of great risk and great volatility Gen. 7:18]; also, "A metaphorical expression taken from the
 		grain trade of a seaport town, illustrating the successful prospects
 		of a bold business venture." Ryrie St. Bib., KJV, ftn. to Eccl. 11:1) BECAUSE
 		(showing the reason FOR the bold investment
 		just cited, i.e., its fruitful result) through MEANS of the many days
 		invested] you will acquire gain with such a venture] (cf. Genesis 26:12 where "gain" is used of Isaac's
 		sowing to get a hundredfold yield).

      2.	Appoint portions (investments) to seven, yea even to eight (adequately diversify investments) since
 		you do not know what calamity will occur upon the land (diversifying minimizes losses):
 
      3.	if the clouds be full of rain, they will empty themselves upon the land (gains for such investments
 		will come); if a tree falls to the south (where one expects as storms move southward, cf. Ps. 29:1-8) or
 		if to the north (where such a calamitous fall is thus unexpected), in the place where the tree falls,
 		there it will exist. (market moves both up and down are both quite unpredictable and very inevitable.)

      4.	Wind watchers (to see where a sudden gust will blow (looking for short-term market drops to avoid in
		investing)) will not sow (won't invest enough) and cloud viewers (trying to predict long-term upward
 		market trends) will not reap. (will even hinder gains) speculating inhibits final investing returns]


      5.	Since there is not now in you the knowledge of what is the way of the wind (ignorance of downward
 		market moves), so also you will never find out (move from participle to imperfect tense, cf. Leupold,
 		Ecclesiastes, p. 264) how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child (the complexities
 		of what creates long-term market advances) as in this way you do not know the Maker, Elohim
 		(God), who works all such] things. (God's affecting market movements both in short- and long-term
 		time frames is beyond man's capacity to forecast just as man cannot comprehend God as His Creator.)

      6.	(So) (as market ups and downs inevitably occur (v. 3), and the investor is totally ignorant of which will
 		occur, with what investment and when (v. 5), making market timing and forecasting futile (v. 4)) in the
 		morning (as soon as one has investment capital) sow your seed (invest) and until the evening do not
 		let your hands be idle (look for ways to increase one's capacity to investment more capital) because 
		there is not in you the knowledge of which (investment) will succeed, whether this or that, or if
 		both alike will do well. Once properly invested, don't speculate, but focus on investing more capital!]


Commentary (See also The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, p. 1002-1003)



      I.  Make bold investments into volatile businesses that show quality promises of profits in return, 11:1a:


	      A.	Robert G. Hagstrom, Jr., The Warren Buffett Way, p. 67: "Buffett has learned from experience
 (1 - Need		that good, well-managed businesses are often not available at reasonable prices...His purchase is
  to be bold)		not deterred by pessimistic economic forecasts or gloomy stock market predictions.  If he is
			convinced that an investment is attractive, he buys boldly."

	      B.	Norman Fosback, Editor in Chief, Mutual Funds magazine, Jan. '96, p. 10: "First Word: How To
 			Become A Guaranteed Winner:...Most investors don't take enough risk.  Overly concerned with
 			losing money in the short run, they ignore the fact that long-term investing in...stocks and stock
 			mutual funds...ultimately eliminates risk.  This means investors can be very aggressive in the
 			short run in order to maximize returns in the long run...The stock market is like a gambling arena
 			only in the short run.  In the long run, stock fund investors are invariably winners."

  (2-Invest  C.		Twen. Cent. Mutual Funds' Investor Advantage, Fall, 1994, "Redefining risk," p. 2, has a graph
    in stocks		describing "what $100 invested in 1926 grew to through 1993."  Inflation grew to $815, Treasury
  aggressively)		Bills yielded $1,173, corporate bonds yielded $4,034, but stocks yielded $80,008.00.

	      D.	Kiplinger's Mutual Funds '97, p. 59: "With a time horizon of ten years or longer, stocks are the
			place to be, and the more volatile, the better ...Those with a long-term approach...benefit from
 			volatility in rising markets, which happen far more than half the time." (volatility = steep swings)

	      E.	"Investor's Corner," Reg.-Cit., "Think positive when investing" (12/10/95): " . . . the U.S. stock
			market...crashed on October 29, 1929...However,...one of the main reasons...was...many
 			investors bought stock on...margin.  Today, there are strict regulations on margin...in addition,
 			most stock traded on the major exchanges today is held by large, long-term investors . . ."
 
	      F.	Newsweek, Daniel McGinn, "He Keeps It Dull and Duller," April 10, 1995, p. 50-52: (Interview
			with Lynn Hopewell, "ranked among the country's top financial advisers by Money and Worth
 			magazines") " . . . even as you approach retirement, you can't back away from stocks . . . you
 			have to worry about maintaining . . . purchasing power and beating inflation."  Also, Greg
 			Carlson, "Funding Retirement: Increased Life Expectancy Requires Aggressive Investing" in 
			Dec. '97 Mutual Funds mag., p. 31f: "(a) today, people live longer than ever . . . (b) actuarial life
 			expectancies are based only on life as we know it today.  Medical advances may soon spiral the
 			numbers much higher . . . (c) Another factor favoring investing in equities well into retirement is
 			the historical performance of stocks over extended holding periods ... So] T. Rowe Price's Ned
 			Notzon . . . who helped develop the company's newest retirement asset-allocation models . . .
 			says . . . 'by eleven years as a cash-out horizon in retirement] . . . you should get as aggressive
 			as your risk tolerance will LET you be.'" cash-out horizon = duration of investing]

	      G.	Linda Stern, "Retirement: Do You Really Need a Million?", Nov.-Dec., '99 Family Money, p.
 			73-74, 77: "Most retirement-plan] programs assume that in retirement you'll spend 70 to 80 %
			of what you make now.  'That's just nonsense, when you think about it,' says Ralph Warner,
 			author of Get a Life: You Don't Need a Million To Retire Well.  He estimates one's yearly
 			spending in retirement will equal 40 to 60 % of his preretirement earnings.  Government data
 			support this... Stern's hints for tweaking plans if behind in planning for retirement: (a) work
  			longer before retiring, (b) earn more, (c) invest reasonably more] aggressively (d) & spend less].

			Also, Inv. Bus. Daily, 3/26/01, 3/27/01 & 3/28/01 ran a series on Am. Century's stats on 
			using its Growth Fund for income from 12/31/71 to 12/31/00: 3 supposed investors 1st withdrew
 			$500/ mo. from $100,000 accounts each.  (a) Investor A did not increase his monthly checks, &
 			ended up with $7.3 million; (b) Investor B increased the checks by 7.18%/yr., ending up with
  			$3,484/mo. and a $5 million nest egg. (c) Investor C increased his checks by 1/12 of 6% of each
 			former year's Dec. 31 balance to factor in fund volatility, ending with checks of $12,462/mo. and
 			a $2 million nest egg.  Thus, one can stretch his nest egg via growth funds even in retirement.

	      H.	Jane Bryant Quinn, Capital Gains: Yes, It's Later Than You Think, Newsweek, 12/4/00, p. 47:
			advice for those starting to build a nest egg for retirement later in life] (in the short-term)
			Aggressive investing gives you a shot at high returns, but at the risk of a large loss . . . There's
 			only one way for such late starters] to make up for lost time.  Save more aggressively . . .

 (avoid use   I.	Eric Tyson, MBA (columnist for the San Francisco Examiner, who has been quoted in
   of futures		Newsweek, Forbes, Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, L.A. Times,
      and		Chicago Tribune and Bottom Line/Personal, and on NBC's Today Show, ABC, CNBC, PBS's
 options		Nightly Business Report, CNN, CBS national radio, Bloomberg Business Radio and Business
 as invest-		Radio Network) Mutual Funds For Dummies, p. 17-18: "There are gambling equivalents in the
 ments	 as		investment world -- putting your money into futures, options, and commodities . . . As with
 they can 		gambling you occasionally win, as Hillary Rodham Clinton did, when the market moves the right
 irrepressibly,		way at the right time.  But, in the long run, you're gonna lose . . . A former broker I know who
 and suddenly		used to work for Merrill Lynch and Shearson told me, 'I had one client who made money in
 leave one 		options, futures or commodities for 12 years, but the only reason he came out ahead was that he
 financially		had to pull money out to close on a home purchase just when he happened to be ahead.  The
 vulnerable		commissions were great for me, but there's no way a customer will make money in them.'"

   	       J.	Sease & Prestbo, Barron's Guide To Making Investment Decisions, p. 218ff ("The Two-Edged
  to others		Sword of Leverage"): "There is more bang per buck, or drubbing per dollar, in futures & options
 and bank- 		than in any other investment vehicle.  That's because they are leveraged. . .a]You can get into
 	ruptcy		the futures game with either a buy or a sell order by putting up only 10% or so of a contract's
 fully con-        	value . . . (if the value of the contract goes up and you sell your contract) You get to keep all of
	 trary to 	your profit and still have the (initial investment amount) that paved your way into the futures 
Prov. 6:1-5		market . . . if the price of (the contract) falls between (your buy and sell moves), . . . The leverage
			reverses and clobbers you . . . But you can't slip away with your remaining (money) to quietly
			lick your wounds.  A futures market that moves against an investor extracts its due in a tortuous
			manner.  As your paper losses mount, the brokerage firm phones and demands you put up more 
			money -- typically by the end of that very day -- to maintain your position in the market . . . Even
			if you can afford the money, you must struggle with deciding whether to stick to your guns on
			this trade or throw in the towel . . . if you shrug these calls off . . . the brokerage firm is
 			empowered to close out your position plus cash out any other investments it can get its hands on
 			until the loss is covered.  Are we having fun yet?. . .b](re: options) options traders (1) lose
 			money	60% of the time.  And while it is true that you can't lose more in options than the
 			... small amount you pay for them, it is also true that if you keep losing a limited amount of
 			money, you eventually will be wiped out."  "(2) . . . in options, too, you can be hammered
 			. . .  into bankruptcy if you are greedy, careless or both.  Just ask the folks who, in the summer of
 			1987 as the stock market levitated to one record high after another, wrote put options on the S&P
 			500 with exercise levels that were 10% to 15% under the index itself.  They fully expected to
 			keep those premiums because even if the market started dropping, they thought they would have
 			time to buy offsetting put contracts.  Imagine their surprise when, on October 19, the market
 			dropped like an anvil by more than 20%, and they couldn't get out anyway because their brokers'
 			phones were busy or off the hook.  After the market] close, however, their brokers were able to
 			call them with the news that the put options they wrote had been 'put back' to them and would
 			they please send a cashier's check for the full amount . . . Some people had to sell every security
 			they owned to raise the money . . . As a result, the SEC . . . wanted stricter policing of who was
 			allowed to play options . . . That's why . . . your broker will invite you in for a little chat . . . Your
 			net worth will be strip searched, and you will be required to sign a bunch of documents that,
 			among other things, certify you know all about options, like to take risks, and will never sue your
 			broker no matter how far down the primrose path you go . . ."  "(3) . . . futures and options are
 			sometimes distorted versions of the real underlying markets . . . there are some Wall Street
 			traders arbitragers] with heavy-duty computers who specialize in making money from the
 			distortions -- the degree to which prices in the derivative markets are out of synch with those in
 			the underlying markets . . . When they move in a pack, as their computers often cause them to do,
 			they can produce otherwise inexplicable jumps and dips in all the affected markets.  There is
 			nothing you can do about it . . . The main lesson for you is that while futures and options usually
 			track the markets they are based on, sometimes they don't."

			Also, the "Fund I.Q. - Unexpected Leverage Effects", p. 48, 55 discussion in the May,
 			1998 Mutual Funds magazine.  It focuses on leveraged funds that invest in futures and options.
  			It notes that "If the market keeps moving straight up or if it keeps moving straight down, a
 			leveraged fund will provide a return more than commensurate with its leverage -- an 'upside
 			leverage bias' . . . Unfortunately . . . Alternate fluctuations up and down are the norm, and in that
 			situation, leveraged funds produce a downside bias over the long term."

			Also, Jason Zweig's "The Fundamentalist: Flavor of the Month," in the March '99 Money
			magazine (p. 65) writes of such funds: " . . . leverage hurts more on the downside than it helps
			on the upside.  When the market goes down . . . Rydex Nova will fall roughly 50% more than
			the S&P.  And, since it takes a 100% greater gain to pull even after a 50% bigger loss, you may
			never catch up to the market after it resumes rising."

 (3-use	      K.	May 28, 1995 "Investor's Corner," Torrington Reg.-Cit., "Mutual fund investing can beat stock
 mutual			picking: . . . When you invest in mutual funds, you're buying professional management . . . A 
  funds			recent study by one mutual fund showed just how valuable professional management can be . . . 
 over stocks		Assume it's Jan. 1, 1934, and you have $50,000 to invest.  You can either pick five stocks from
 as an indi-		the Dow Jones (30 of the largest, best-managed and most soundly capitalized corporations in the
  vidual		world) and invest $10,000 in each of the stocks, or place the entire amount in the mutual fund . . .
  investor)		(this company's) middle-of-the-road, growth-and-income fund . . . For the study, the fund used
			the stocks that made up the Dow on Dec. 31, 1993 because the Dow has changed over time, and 
			many of the companies that it included in 1934 no longer exist . . . If you (first pick five Dow
 			stocks, and) . . . went with Eastman Kodak, GE, Philip Morris, Proctor & Gamble and Sears,
 			you win.  Assume you invested $10,000 in each stock, took all dividends in cash and paid no
 			brokerage fees.  Your total investment would have grown to just more than 6 million dollars
 			over the 60-year period . . . However, if you had invested your $50,000 in the mutual fund that
 			performed this analysis, your investment would have grown to more than 11 million dollars--
 			nearly twice as much as if you had picked the five most successful stocks, and who knows how 
			much better than if you hadn't chosen the right stocks . . . this comparison illustrates the
 			advantages of long-term professional (mutual fund) management vs. flying solo . . . "

	      L.	Glen King Parker, Publisher of Mutual Fund Forecaster, in a Feb. 1977 ad letter promoting his
 			newsletter, said: "Nobel economist Paul Samuelson warns, 'Anyone with a portfolio of under
 			$100,000 is unlikely to do as well investing his own money as he can do in a mutual fund.'"

 (4-use	      M.	Kiplinger's Mutual Funds '97, p. 6: "over time, stock funds earn richer returns than bond funds,
 aggressive 		and aggressive-growth funds do better than long-term-growth or growth-and-income funds."
  stock funds,		p.24: " . . . if your cash-out time (time allotted for investing before redemptions) is ten or more
  long-term)		years . . . (and) If you're aiming for the highest return, go 100% into stocks.  Most people, of
			course, lack the stomach for that . . . but if you have the stomach, that is the best route to take!]"
 	      N.	Bottom Line/Personal, "Investing Wisely Today Is Not Difficult," Michael Stolper, pres. of a San
 	 		Diego-based advisory firm for wealthy individuals who invest exclusively in mutual funds.
  			"Myth: More than 80% of investment returns come from skillful asset allocation--not asset
 			selection.  Reality: 10% of an investment decision is judgment--the rest is random . . . 'Perfect'
 			asset allocation is the allocation that actually keeps the investor sane.  Take the most risk you 
			can without having it consume your life."  

	      O.	"The Seven Hottest New Funds," Smart Money, by Tom Lauricella and Lauren Young:
    			" . . . new funds . . . are (1) smaller, (2) nimbler, (3) more aggressive than the average fund 
			-- and their (4) parent companies are doing everything they can to make their returns soar
 			above the crowd (all the better to attract more cash . . .) . . . (a) new funds often get first 
			crack at hot new initial public offerings, many of which double or even triple in their first
 			few days of trading . . . Think of new funds themselves as IPOs -- get in early, ride them


 			while they're hot, and then move on in a year or so before they get so loaded down with
 			cash they underperform like everyone else . . . (b) It's an open secret that fund managers
 			and executives regularly pour their own cash into new funds, both their firms' and others."

 (5-use inv.  P.	Morningstar Investor, Oct. '95, "No Easy Answers," by Catherine Gillis Odelbo: "There seems to
  methods         	be an endless stream of investment techniques that take the so-called guesswork out of investing,
 that maxi-		and replace it with more 'scientific' principles.  Market timing, technical analysis, indexing, asset
  mize   		allocation and style analysis are among those most widely used . . . What's ironic is that the most
known stats 		successful investors are not the ones who buy into such principles . . . all great investors who are
  that have 		unanimous in rejecting such mechanical investment techniques . . . (1) employ fundamental
 shown to 		analysis . . . (that) allows investors to understand a company's business and how it will generate
 produce the		the cash flows that increase its economic value, which drives the stock price over the long term .
  most pro-		(2) because they have spent their time understanding the investments they buy, the world's
bable high &        greatest investors tend to be the ones who are least diversified . . . (3) Great investors are also the
 hence quality		ones who tend to defy consistent style classification . . . (4) Finally,all the great investors buy
returns in		stocks; asset allocation doesn't have a place in their programs." (see also IV,E)	
 the	      Q.	Leckey, The Morningstar Approach To Investing, p. 27-28: "Historical performance studies 
long-term)		show that index funds tend to work best with more efficient markets where investors thoroughly
 			know the stock companies and arrive at an uncontested price for the stocks in question], liquid
 			where one can sell as easily and quickly as he can buy the stocks] such as blue-chip stocks,
 			European stocks, and investment-grade bonds . . . Small-company stocks, junk bonds and
 			convertible bonds . . . you should skip the index funds in those categories . . . and concentrate on
 			the track records of the funds . . . The whole concept behind investing in such] a little-known
 			market is to be the first clever buyer at the party, and also, presumably, the first at the bank . . ."

			Also, Morningstar's Rekenthaler, in a 4/28/99 article posted at jrekent@mstar.com said:
 			Don't get too hung up on...indexing vs. active management...the line separating indexers...who
 			design their own investment systems from active quantitative managers is very, very fine. 

	      R.	Investor's Business Daily, "Making Money In Mutuals," Doug Rogers, "Where should you exert
			greater effort, in timing the market or selecting the most promising sector?  A study released by
			CDA Wiesenberger suggests...You're better off being a perfect sector picker than a perfect
			market timer.  Reality: It's hard to do either one well..."  He also notes index funds outperformed
 			the average growth mutual fund, "...But the best funds clearly were superior to the index."

	      S.	Money, Oct. 1996, p. 51-52, "Fund Watch: Four Funds That Excel By Picking A Few Good
 			Stocks."  (These are PBHG Select Equity, Clipper, White Oak Growth and Mairs & Power
 			Growth)  "Legendary stock pickers like Warren Buffett have proved . . . that (a) making big bets
 			in (b) a few well-researched investments and (c) focusing on long-term results can lead to
 			market-whipping returns . . . The idea of investing in a small number of stellar stocks is simple:
 			'(fund) managers have the highest degree of confidence in only 5 to 15 of their favorite picks,'
 			says No-Load Fund Analyst ed. Ken Gregory.  'So why dilute those winners with 100 other
 			stocks?' . . This focused strategy . . . entails some short-term risk. If one stock cracks up, it will
 			leave a bigger dent in a portfolio of 20 shares than one with 5 times that number." Yet, if one
 			resorts to dollar-cost-averaging, he benefits from such dips, Stowers, Yes You Can, p. 150-151.]

	      T.	Investor's Business Daily, Oct. 4, 1996, "Tight Focus Helps Three Managers Rebound," by Doug
 			Rogers (Interview with Harold Ireland, mgr. of Evergreen Agr. Growth Fund) "When you have a
 			short bet (load the portfolio with fewer stocks), you are forced to buy better-quality issue.  There
 			are plenty of guys (other funds' mgrs.) who put in 1% or .5% positions, which is a weak bet.
  			And of course they are buying junk--fifth-rate companies.  They don't admit they're fifth-rate, but
 			they do it.  They do it with small positions and a huge list . . . 
	
	      U.	Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine, Oct. '96, "Insider Interview of Gary Pilgrim," by Fred.
 			W. Frailey, p. 62-65.  Pilgrim manages PBHG's Growth fund, the best fund in America the last
 			5 and 10 years running.  In summarizing Pilgrim's methods, Frailey noted: (a) He avoids emotion
 			(he relies on what is knowable from analysts over opinion and guesswork); (b) He knows what
 			is important (giving overwhelming weight to upward revisions in earnings estimates and a
 			greater-than-expected quarterly earnings, allowing PBHG Growth to own growth stocks early
 			rather than late in their growth cycles); and (c) he knows what is unimportant (wearing blinders
 			to P/E ratios, price momentum of a stock and value yardsticks, and input from CEOs of stock
			companies as they tend to give positively-biased reports).  Pilgrim is quoted, saying, "There's so
 			much 'noise' from investment gurus]...(about) what causes stocks to go up and down -- I don't
 			say this glibly.  We have tried to build valuation models such as P/E ratios and price-momentum
 			models into our system, but when we do, it doesn't RAISE the level of our returns." (p. 62) 

	      V.	"Top Guns," Mutual Funds magazine, May, 1996, p. 57-61.  Factors making these top mutual
			fund managers excel over other managers: (1) they rely heavily on research to know about the
			companies in which they invest; (2) they screen out purchasing companies they don't know
 			much about and invest in what they know are good ones; they feel this is better than diversifying
 			for the mere sake of diversification when doing so would put them at risk of investing in bad
 			companies selected through ignorance; (3) they look for a catalyst of change in the company
 			that will improve its current growth rate; and (4) they get teamwork input where each party on
 			the team can afford to specialize in investigating and studying an industry to get to know it well!

	      W.	Jane Bryant Quinn, "Indexing: For Winners Only," Newsweek, April 17, 1995: " . . . the secret to
			(building) wealth (through investing in stocks) is that a secret doesn't exist . . . For success you
			need only a simple investment with profits compounded over time . . . "

	      X.	"Investor's Corner," Reg.-Cit., 5/7/95: "Five steps to a secure retirement: . . . (1) Plan: you should
			expect to need retirement savings of two-and-a-half times to six times your pre-retirement
 			earnings.  (2) Start early, and invest regularly: The sooner you start investing, the lower your
			regular deposits must be to meet your goal . . . In addition, investing regularly puts dollar-cost
			averaging to work, protecting you from fluctuating stock prices and interest rates.  It also helps
			you benefit from compounding, letting your money grow at a faster rate.  (3) Diversify.
  			(4)Shelter: Placing your savings in tax-free or tax-deferred investments allows you to save more
 			for retirement (401(k) plans, IRAs, municipal bonds, annuities and tax-exempt mutual funds are . .
 			. ways . . . (5) Get Advice: It pays to enlist the help of professionals to assist with . . . planning."

	      Y.	"Selecting the best mutual funds," "Investor's Corner," Reg.-Cit., 7/2/95: "(1) Select funds that
 			have had the same manager for at least five years . . .(2)Eliminate as much risk as is possible . . .
 			(3) Choose funds that have performed well over at least the past three to five years.  Ten- to
 			fifteen-year periods are even better if you can find funds that have had the same management that
 			long (re: choosing load vrs. no-load funds)  'A better way to proceed (than selecting funds merely
 			because of they are either load or non-load) is to try to separate good funds from bad ones.'"

	      Z.	Investor's Business Daily, "The Long View," 1/26/00, p. A1: "Many investors believe high
 			turnover rates are bad for funds.  They fear that high turnover leads to big capital gains payouts
 			and higher expenses.  But many high-turnover funds produce returns far in excess of expenses
 			and are tax efficient.  Among the top quartile of best-performing domestic equity funds, 40% of
 			funds have turnover rates between 101 and 500 % and return an average of 22% over five years."

	      AA.	"Mutual funds are not for trading . . . " "Investor's Corner," Reg.-Cit., 9/24/95: "The safest way
			to select mutual funds is to look at those that meet your objectives and risk tolerance.  Before
			you buy, study the historical performance of the funds through good and bad markets -- the
 			longer the history, the better . . . The key is consistency, and your challenge is to have the
 			patience to let the fund's managers work for you.  This discipline will greatly enhance your
 			chances for profit and the safety of your investment."  

			Similarly, Jason Zweig, "The Fundamentalist," in the May, '98 issue of Money, p. 46
			shows from a recent study by Lu Zheng, a Yale Ph.D. "Is Money Smart?", Journal of Finance]
			that flitting from one mutual fund to another generally greatly hurts one's returns as "investors
			who are just passing through, instead of holding on for the long run, often earn much lower 
			returns than their funds do."  After picking a good fund, Zweig urges "Then hang on to it year
 			after year; sell only if you need the money or if your fund falls well behind its peers."

	      BB.	"Wall Street: The Last Word," Jeanhee Kim of Money magazine, May 1996, p. 73. Kim reports
			on a book to be published in August by McGraw-Hill by Greenwich, Conn. Money manager
 			James O'Shaughnessy (What Works On Wall Street) in which he ran computer screens on all 43
 			years of Standard & Poor's Compustat database to see which investing strategies in the stock
 			market truly work over time.  His tests included 10 analytical factors "such as dividend yields
 			and price-to-cash flow."  He found that buying stocks with low price-to-earnings ratios and low 
			price-to-book ratios made for success.  But investors did even better if they purchased stocks
			with low price-to-sales ratios, low being $1 or less for $1 of sales per share.  However, the best
			performance was recorded by stocks that had low price-to-sales ratios where the 
			company's previous 12 months of performance recorded price appreciation momentum.  

	     CC.	William J. O'Neill, founder of Investor's Business Daily, in a taped presentation "How To Make
			Money in Stocks," reports a study he made on successful stocks since 1953: he took over 500
			companies and noted that, through 7 to 8 market cycles, just before these companies' stocks
			doubled, seven factors kept identifying their characteristics: (1) C = Current earnings per share
			showed 70% increases before the large stock advance, and there were accelerated earnings for 8
			to 10 quarters before the advance; (2) A = Annual earnings/share were 25 to 50% for 3/4 of these
			companies; (3) N = they all offered a new product or service; (4) S = the numbers of shares
 			offered on the	market were small enough that their change was rapid, say 30 mil. shares or less;
 			(5) L = (not a laggard) their relative price strength was 70 or better; (6) I = their stock had some
 			sort of institutionalized support behind them for strength; (7) M = they enjoyed a broad market
 			upward trend environment. We should buy funds using these (AA & BB entries) findings!]

	    DD.		Allan Sloan, "Trend Surfing," Newsweek, July 1, 1996.  "One of the things about (my) having
			spent almost 30 years watching markets is realizing that there will always be another financial
 			wave coming around.  And remembering that when a wave is cresting, there is no shortage of
 			"experts" who will justify any excesses by invoking the . . . words: this time it's different.  But
 			it's never different.  Financial waves come and go . . . you can make a good, long-term return in
 			the stock market if you have a consistent, intelligent, long-term strategy and follow it.  (1) People
 			like me enjoy buying individual stocks and testing ourselves in the market.  (2) For the less
 			venturesome, there are plenty of mutual funds with good long-term records.  (3) If you have no
 			sense of adventure, you can always cop out with an S&P 500 index fund . . . What I am telling
 			you is that unless you're very lucky or very, very good, you can't trendsurf your way to
 			investment success.  If making money were that simple, we would all be rich."

	    EE.		Allan Sloan, Newsweek's Wall Street Editor, "Dan Dorfman Tips Over," Newsweek, Nov. 6, '95:
			"Remember that there's no quick and simple way to get rich in the (stock) market.  And that you
			should take what you read, see and hear not with a grain of salt, but with an entire shaker full.
			If we business journalists were such geniuses, we would all be out making money for ourselves
			playing the market, not digging up information for you."

            FF.		Bottom Line Personal, "Alexandra Armstrong's Common Sense Rules of Financial Well-Being,"
			(Armstrong is chairman of Armstrong, Welch & MacIntyre Inc., a fee-based financial-planning
			firm, 1155 Connecticut Ave. NW. Ste. 250, Wash. DC 20036) "Saving and investing are the only
			sure ways to amass great wealth . . . time and compound interest are strong allies.  Don't waste
			time agonizing over which mutual funds to buy--there are hundreds of good funds out there.
			Simply pick funds with good 10-year records that suit your financial needs.  In the years before
			retirement, invest up to 80% of your assets in stocks or stock mutual funds.  Over the long term--
			10 years or longer--these investments have delivered much greater rates of return than bonds.  
			With a longer time horizon, there is much less risk since you will be able to weather even major
			corrections in the market.  After retirement, you may want to invest a larger percentage in fixed
			bonds and mutual funds that invest in them.  Keep the rest in good-quality stocks or stock funds."

	    GG.		Money, Jan. '99, "The Fundamentalist: No Dumping," by Jason Zweig.  "'It takes so long to 
			determine whether outperformance is real or just plain luck,' says Ted Aronson, an institutional
			money manager at Aronson & Partners in Philadelphia, 'that hiring an active money manager is
			an act of faith.'  That's why it makes no sense to base your loyalty to a manager purely on
 			whether he or she is beating the market.  Since the manager may just be lucky rather than
 			brilliant, you should focus instead on a fund's more consistent, reliable qualities, such as low
 			expenses, high tax efficiency and a stable investment strategy."

	    HH.		"A Tale of Ups and Downs," Allan Sloan, Newsweek's Wall Street editor, Newsweek, Dec. 30,
			1996/Jan. 6, 1997.  " . . . the (stock) market is lurching wildly, and seems fragile and unstable.  
			(so) . . . I've said this a bunch of times, but I'll say it again.  For nonprofessional investors, (1) the
 			way to survive in the market is (a) to have an idea of what you're trying to do, (b) stick to it,
 			(c)don't get too happy when prices rise or too depressed when they fall . . . (d) you have to go
 			against the flow of popular opinion, (e) take chances and (f) pay attention.  If you can't or won't
 			do that, (2) buy a mutual fund run by someone with a good long-term record.  (3) If you can't
 			pick such a fund, buy an index fund, preferably one with the lowest costs . . . "

    II.	Invest long-term to minimize short-term volatility and maximize chances of a profit in the end, 11:1b.

	      A.	Wall Street Journal, 2/27/96, p. C1 - "Getting Going" by Jonathan Clements: " ... (don't) make a
 			large investment in stocks unless you plan to hang on for 8 or 10 years, and preferably longer ... "

	      B.	Jeremy J. Siegel, Stocks for the Long Run, as cited in Twentieth Cent. Mutual Funds' quarterly,
 			Investor Advantage, Spring 1995.  "Siegel's book carefully tracks almost 200 years of stock
			market results (some 60,000 trading days)."  "His primary source is G. William Schwert's,
 			'Indexes of United States Stock Prices from 1802 to 1987," Journal of Business 63 (1900), pp.
			399-426.  Siegel says, 'Over-focusing on one-year returns can lead to very poor investment
			decisions.  Even the greatest funds have years of under performance . . . Even average stock
			market returns -- with time -- dramatically beat bonds, money markets or Treasury bills.'"

	      C.	"Investor's Corner," Reg.-Cit., 8/20/95, "Investing (in the stock market) is not gambling: . . .
 			smart investing is not a gamble . . . It's a highly regulated way . . . to share in the success of
 			prosperous companies . . . In the first 94 years of this century . . . the market dropped 10 percent

			an average of every two years and 25 percent every six years.  In spite of these declines, 
			however, the stock market as a whole has rewarded investors with an average annual gain of 10
 			percent . . . So how do you improve your averages?  The best way is to be patient.  Look at the
 			market as a long-term commitment, not a short-term gamble . . . Successful money managers . . .
 			plan . . . owning the shares at least three to five years."

	      D.	Bottom Line Personal, "Investing Wisely Today Is Not Difficult," Michael Stolper.  "Myth: It's
			destiny that you're going to be rich.  (Reality:) . . . the only certain path to riches is inheritance.
  			Other than inheritance, . . . Just save enough money and put it in good growth investments.  Then
 			leave your money there for as long as you possibly can.  (The other way is to hire a genius to
 			invest brilliantly, but Stolper points out that the average investor has no control over that.)" 

	      E.	"Investor's Corner," Reg.-Cit., 6/4/95, "The late Paul Cabot, co-founder of State Street
 			Investment Corp. . . . believed that focusing on long-term speculation was the only way to give
 			individual investors a fair chance.  His firm] faced turbulent times in its early years -- the 1929
 			stock market crash, the Great Depression, World War II and more.  Yet no investor who held
 			shares of the fund for over 10 years ever lost money -- a ... testament to long-term investing."
			Similarly, the Ibbottson & Associates, Stocks, Bonds, Bills and Inflation 1998 Yearbook
			shows that for each 5-year time period between 1926 and 1997, stocks and bonds had more than
			an 85% chance of yielding a positive return (PBHG Funds Update, v. 5, Issue 3, p. 1)

	      F.	Kiplinger's Mutual Funds '97, p. 33, 40: though spending most of their lives together not earning
			over $50,000, Frank and Marcia Parrish of Denver, Col. have amassed a retirement nest egg
			worth $2 million.  They did so by putting money into stock mutual funds over the years.  At one
			point, in the 1973-74 bear market, their market value of holdings was less than what they had
			invested over the years.  However, instead of panicking and withdrawing their money, they kept
			adding to their stocks.  "Since then, the stock market has increased in value 1,000%."  "'The
 			experience of watching our money grow has made me a firm believer in investing regularly in
 			stocks,' says Parrish.  'All you have to do is put money into stock funds and forget about it.'" 

	      G.	According to the Value Line Mutual Fund Survey records on Fidelity Magellan, the most popular

			mutual fund in America, as of the close of 1996, had one invested $100 a month into the fund 
			starting in January of 1976, and kept these investments in the fund, he would have seen his
 			$24,000 worth of deposits over those 20 years produce $335,048 by 1996, a multipication of his
 			investment over 13.96 times!  Yet, Peter Lynch, former star manager of the fund reports that
 			most of the people who invested in the fund actually lost money because they bought its shares
 			when its share price was going up and sold shares when its value decreased.  This illustrates the
 			great advantage of spending time IN the market OVER trying to TIME the market!

	      H.	James E Stowers, Yes You Can . . . Achieve Financial Independence (Founder of Twentieth
			Century Mutual Funds), p. 215-216: "on investing in mutual funds] Keep in mind that when the
 			market is at its lowest, you will be deluged by a constant stream of negative & discouraging 
			news from the media].  Conversely, when the market is at its highest, you are overwhelmed by
			optimistic news which gives you positive views about the future. In both instances, you must
 			remain aware of what is happening and fight to prevent these emotional reactions from
 			influencing your own rational judgment by focusing on your long-term financial goals."

	       I.	Gary Pilgrim of the PBHG Funds, in Vol. 5, Issue 3 (3rd quarter) "PBHG Funds Update", p. 3 in
			a Portfolio Manager Roundtable discussion with Gary Haubold and James McCall of PBHG:
			Answering the question of what shareholders of PBHG should do about market volatility]
 			"Well, from my experience the ideal situation is when a shareholder understands the volatility of 
			the asset classes represented by his or her mutual fund, and then puts concerns about the market
 			volatility aside in an absolute sense and views the environment as producing opportunity...I love
 			volatile environments because the opportunity to buy less liquid stocks -- which is where we
 			spend our time -- is much greater when fear and apprehension rule the day because people are
 			selling stocks for no other reason than they are scared.  That is an ideal environment for a calm
			and steady hand to be opportunistic.  It is the same way with mutual fund shareholders."

	       J.	Money, Jan. '99, "The Fundamentalist: No Dumping," by Jason Zweig.  "Precisely because 
			performance is so unpredictable, it's almost always a mistake to sell a fund after a year or two of
			bad performance.  Dalbar, a Boston research firm, studied returns at hundreds of funds in the 14
			years from 1984 through 1997.  By comparing the fund's performance with the amount of cash 
			that flowed in and out of them, Dalbar was able to calculate how much money the average fund
			shareholder earned over that period.  The startling result: while the market rose an annual 
			average of 17.2% during those 14 years, the typical stock fund investor earned only 6.7% a year.
			That gaping 10 1/2-percentage-point difference comes from the constant pursuit of the
			next manager who might beat the market . . . By dumping one fund that's cold and buying
 			another that's hot, you're likely to miss out on the recovery of the first investment style -- and
 			then get burned when the second style flames out."


    III.	Diversify fully within the scope of bold (promising) investments to limit risk of loss, Eccl. 11:2-3. 

 (1 - stated) A.	"Investor's Corner," Reg.-Cit., 5/7/95, "Five Steps to a Secure Retirement: . . . (3) Diversify . . . " 

 (2 - how:    B.	Bottom Line/Personal, "Investing Wisely Today Is Not Difficult," by Michael Stolper, pres. of
    a - maximum		Stolper & Co., an advisory firm for wealthy individuals who invest only in mutual funds. 
         		"Myth: Diversifying your assets is the key to building wealth.  Reality: Study after study of stock
 			portfolios have shown that you are fully diversified once you own 25 or 30 stocks.
  			Mathematically . . . anything more . . . is likely to water down the strength of your portfolio."

    	      C. 	Bottom Line/Personal, "Bill Staton Tells How To Double Your Money Every Five Years," by
    b - minimum		Bill Staton, CFA, CPA, chairman of The Staton Institute, an investment advisory firm in
 			Charlotte, N.C. who conducts wealth-building seminars nationwide.  "A number of studies show
 			that you can achieve about 90% of the benefits of diversification with as few as seven or eight
 			companies . . . Your . . . stocks must be in . . . different industries.  That way, if a particular
 			industry sours, the rest of your portfolio will be able to take the downturn in stride."

	      D.  	Ibid., Hagstrom, The Warren Buffett Way, p. 16: "...if you are a know-something investor, able
    c - why	 	..to find...sensibly-priced companies that possess important long-term competitive advantages,
 			conventional diversification makes no sense to you." favoring a concentrated, quality portfolio]

              E.	USA Today, Sept. 27, 1996, "Diversifying funds: Simplicity is key," by John Waggoner."You've

   d - illus-		read that you should have a diversified investment portfolio.  So . . . Suppose you had $70,000 to
	 trated) 	invest and decided to split your money among seven funds.  You put $10,000 apiece into three 
			value funds: One of large-cap stocks, one of midcap stocks & one of small-cap.  Then you put
 			$10,000 apiece into three growth funds -- one big-cap, one midcap, one small-cap.  You put the
 			final $10,000 into an international fund.  In 10 years, your $70,000 investment would have
 			grown 199%, to $209,300 according to Morningstar.  (Yet,) Had you simply tossed your money
 			into one average diversified stock fund, your investment would have grown 202%, to $211,400.
  			So all that time and effort building a diversified portfolio left you with subpar returns...Most
 			mutual funds are diversified already], so...Ditch half your funds ... "  


    IV.	Since it is humanly impossible to time or speculate about the market, invest regularly to be further
 	ahead in the long run due to one's inherent ignorance of future market ups and downs, Eccl. 11:4-5.

	      A.	Investor's Business Daily, Despite Lousy Year, Staying In Stock Funds Still Makes Sense, by
			Paul Katzeff, 1-2-01: a Charles Schwab study tracked 4 theoretical investors over 20 years who 
			had $2,000/yr. to invest.  Investor #1 timed the market perfectly, buying S&P 500 Index fund
			shares; Investor #2 bought into the index each Dec. 31st, Investor #3 bought into the index at the
 			worst time each year while Investor #4 put his sum into Treasury bills.  The perfect timer earned
			$387,120, the every-Dec.-31st investor $362,185, the bad market timer $321,569 & the Treasury 
			bill investor $76,558.  'The study provides several lessons,'said Bryan Olson of the Schwab
 			Center for Investment Research.   . . . (1) investing is better than standing on the sidelines . . . 
 			(2) . . . investing . . . as soon as possible works almost as well as perfect market timing.'

	      B.	Ibid., Hagstrom, The Warren Buffett Way, p. 224-225: "Turn off the stock market...Remember
 			that the stock market is manic-depressive." p. 226: "Don't worry about the economy."  p. 227:
 			"...no one has economic predictive powers any more than they have stock market predictive
 			powers..." p. 226: "You know you have approached Buffett's level when your attention turns to 
			the stock market and the only question on your mind is: 'Has anybody done anything foolish
 			lately that will allow me an opportunity to buy a good business at a great price?'"

	      C.	"Investor's Corner," Reg.-Cit., "Market timing myth or reality?": "Dramatic stock-market gains
			are generally limited to a relatively few trading days.  If you want to be there when they happen,
 			you've got to stay in the market . . . Hulbert Financial Digest studied 29 market-timing strategies 
			over a period of five years . . . The results of the study showed a simple buy-and-hold philosophy 
			outperformed 28 of the 29 market-timing strategies."

	      D.	Investor Advantage, Twentieth Cent. Mut. Funds' quarterly, Fall, '95, p. 3: "An independent
 			study of the stock market commissioned by Towneley Capital Management and conducted by
 			University of Michigan Prof. H. Nejat Seyhun, Ph.D., showed that if you missed only 1.2% of
 			the stock market's best-performing trading days between 1963 and 1993 (94 days out of 30 years,
 			averaging 2.6 days per month during that period), you would have missed . . . 95% of the total 
			return . . . a market's sharp upward swings, in addition to being unpredictable, are largely
 			responsible for its growth over time.  Thus, not having the discipline to stick with the markets
 			may cause one to miss the primary opportunities for gain."

	      E.	Article on the website: Morningstar.com: The Risk of Value Investing 9/29/00 by Rekenthaler:
 			Small growth funds are riskier than small value funds], but with large growth funds, the issue 
			is in doubt . . . However the growth-versus-value debate eventually plays out, the combination
			of the two styles is likely to be safer than either party in isolation.
			"Strategy Session," by John R. Ruocco, owner of Asset Management Associates, South
 			Windsor, in the 10/25/99 Hartford Bus. Jour.: besides touting indexing to much, he warns against
 			beliefs of (2) letting the fund manager decide when to buy and sell for you (it doesn't work well
 			for long bear markets), (2) always buying in market dips (a mistake in long bear markets),
  			(3) assuming all funds make money so you invest in one at random, and (4) assuming one's
 			portfolio will do well because the economy is humming.  Hence, there are problems with all
 			oversimplified investing beliefs as we do not know all that will happen in the future. (See I,N)

	      F.  	Andrew Leckey, The Morningstar Approach To Investing, p. 40-41: "If you're willing to assume 
			risk at a market bottom, Morningstar studies have shown that it will pay off quite handsomely in
			the long run . . . Morningstar divided equity funds into low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk 
			categories and tracked them for three years following five different downturns.  The findings
 			were that after a downturn there's a strong tendency for higher-risk funds to outperform
 			medium-risk, and for medium-risk to outperform low-risk . . . These three-year numbers
			reinforce the importance of staying in the market and being in aggressive funds."

	      G.	Interview with William O'Neil, founder of Investor's Business Daily in the 8/10/98 issue of that
			paper: "The major price advances of all the stocks I've mentioned Microsoft, Home Depot,
 			Cisco Systems] followed times of price decline and 'base-building' in which the price made no
 			progress.  These bases were formed specifically because of a decline or correction in the general
 			market averages.  In each case, when the market finally turned and was on a new uptrend, these
 			leaders were the first stocks in the market to move . . . I think of them bear markets or
 			corrections] as opportunities, because all the new big leaders are building new bases and will
 			rebound fast, whether it's tomorrow or three months from now."

	      H.	Newsweek, Sept. 7, 1998, p. 76, "Sifting the Rubble," by Linda Stern: " . . . decades of studies
			have concluded that most investors can't time markets . . . T. Rowe Price Associates analyzed 
			data from bear markets in 1981, 1987 and 1992 and found that investors who stayed put did
 			better than those who sold on the way down and bought back in at recovery.  Most investors
 			make their money during those . . . unexpected rebounds that follow stock-market storms."

  	      I.	Leckey, The Morningstar Approach To Investing, p. 42-43:  "Morningstar has found that . . .
 			until even one timing fund can prove itself consistently in the real-world mutual fund setting,
 			there's little reason for serious investors to pay heed to these systems." 

	      J.	Allan Sloan and Rich Thomas, "Riding for a Fall," Oct. 5, 1998, p. 56-57 of Newsweek reported
			on the bailout of the Long-Term Capital hedge fund as follows: " . . . the Federal Reserve Board
			put together a multi-billion-dollar rescue of a stricken hedge fund last week . . . the hedge fund]
			was about out of capital because it has lost more than $4 billion this year speculating on
 			interest-rate movements of securities ranging from U. S. Treasuries to Danish mortgages.  This, 
			after four years of stellar returns . . . despite its stellar cast of two Nobel laureates and some of
			Wall Street's best-regarded traders and computer jockeys. Alan Abelson and Rhonda Brammer,
			"Capital Offense," Oct. 5, 1998 issue of Barron's, p. 5 reported the "two economists" mentioned 
			above had "won the Nobel Prize for their work in options".] . . . The firm's computer wizards
			expected markets to move one way, but markets kept doing things -- like having 27-year U. S.
			Treasury bonds decline in value relative to 30-year Treasuries -- that the computer insisted would
			never happen.  The firm's chief executive, John Meriwether . . . has told people he considers this
			summer's market a '10-sigma' event.  Translated from the Greek, this means a chance of less than
			one billion billion billion.  He says trading opportunities have never been brighter, because
 			markets are so out of whack.  Maybe.  But when you play roulette you have to make sure you 
			have enough chips to stay at the table until your number comes up.  He didn't."

	      K. 	"Funding Retirement: New Year IRA Tips," Jan. '97 Mutual Funds magazine, p. 29: "What's the
  			single best day of the year to make an IRA contribution?  Most experts unanimously agree:
 			January 1 . . . It's all a question of compounding . . . If you are in your 20s, 30s, 40s or even 
			50s, allot a large portion of your portfolio to aggressive growth vehicles to get the most
 			bang for your buck . . . over the long-term they participate in the growth of the economy 
			and are invariably winners . . . Don't put your IRA in . . . tax-exempt vehicles.  Such
			investments have lower yields because their earnings are tax free. And putting them in an IRA is
 			wasteful because IRAs are already tax-exempt.  Monitor your investments periodically, but not
 			too often . . .you're in it for the long haul.  Give your money manager a chance to prove himself."

	      L.	James E. Stowers, Yes You Can . . . Achieve Financial Independence, p. 150-151.  If a mutual
			fund is volatile, regular investing into it will enhance one's financial investment over time.  
			Stowers graphs out how this works, showing that if one invests $100 a month every month in
			Mutual Fund "A" that steadily goes up in value from $6 to $16 a share for ten years, he would
			not have nearly as much invested as if he had purchased shares in Mutual Fund "B" that started
			at $6 a share, went down to $1.50 a share by the fifth year and slowly climbed back up to the $6
			per share level at the tenth year.  This is because when the price per share retreats, the investor
			buys more shares with his monthly investment dollar.  In hard dollars, his investment after ten
			years in Fund "A" would equal $18,919 where it would equal $24,130 in Fund "B".  Thus, 
			volatility works for the regular investor!  To quote Stowers, "When share prices vary up and 
			down, periodic investing enhances your opportunity for making a profit over time," Ibid., p. 149.

			In connection with this, Penelope Wang, "The Best Funds For Steady Savers," Money
			(Jan. '98), p. 106 wrote: "Money asked . . . Value Line to calculate returns based on a regular
			investment of $100 a month for all 664 widely available diversified domestic-stock funds with
			records covering the five-year period that ended Oct. 31, 1997 and for all 384 funds around for
			the 10-year period that ended Sept. 30, 1997 (...to include the October 1987 market crash).
			Value Line found that, on average, investors using (dollar-cost averaging)...earned a whopping
			25.7% effective annual return over five years and 23.7% over 10 years vs. the average annual
			returns of 17.4% and 13.3%, respectively."  This finding validates Stowers' claim that "When
			share prices vary up and down, periodic investing enhances your opportunity for making a profit
			over time," Ibid., Stowers, Yes You Can, p. 149.
			Similarly, "New Wrinkles On Dollar-Cost Averaging," June '99 issue of Mutual Funds, p.

			p. 98, "...a] as the magnitude of price fluctuations volatility] increases, dollar-cost averaging
 			regularly investing a set amount of cash] boosts returns (or lowers losses), regardless of where
 			the price ends up...b] So] in selecting funds for a dollar-cost averaging program...choose the
 			most volatile...relative volatility tends to be persistent; the most volatile funds in the past will 
			generally be ... the most volatile going forward in the future]."

	      M.  	Nancy Gondo, 1/27/98 Investor's Business Daily, "Stay Invested In A Solid U.S. Growth Fund," 
			writes: " . . . academics long have sought ways to keep the good part of stocks -- the superior 
			returns -- and do away with the bad -- the occasional plummets.  They gave it their best shot and
 			came up with asset allocation . . . But as with most things, there is a price.  Whenever you mix in
 			other assets with stocks, you sentence part of your portfolio to lower long-term returns . . . You 
			have little need to control volatility if you don't need your principal in five to 10 years or more." 

	      N.	The March 1998 issue of Mutual Funds, p. 33 ranked the top fund families among those with five
 			or more funds for the ten year period since the 1987 stock market downturn.  It found that
 			American (formerly, Twentieth) Century came in first with AIM a close second, both of which
 			were well in front of the others.  Spokesmen interviewed from these two families confirmed their
 			respective companys' commitments to full investment in stocks at all times.  American Century's
 			man said that since the market goes up two-thirds of the time, and that its downturns are half as 
			large as its upswings, math and history only serve to support his company's fully invested,
 			non-market-timing approach.  (It was noted that the bull market in that period helped as well!)	

	      O. 	Morningstar Investor, Oct. '95, "What Makes For A Consistent Winner?" by Amy C. Arnott: 
			"Investors with long time horizons and a high tolerance for risk may actually be better off in
 			funds that beat the market less frequently, but by larger margins . . . (As) high-priced stocks are
 			more vulnerable to sudden downturns . . . growth-style funds (earn) . . . gains in shorter spurts,
 			while value] funds that invest in cheaper stocks . . . pump out more consistent results."
			Also, the 2/9/98 issue of Forbes ("The wallflower strategy" by James M. Clash and Mary
			Beth Grover, p. 114-117) seeks to tout a preference for stashing money into small cap value
			funds over small cap growth funds, noting that from Jan. 1, '78 to Jan. 1, '98 "dull, stodgy,
 			low-P/E small cap" value funds delivered a compound average annual return above 20%, a full
 			3.9% more than small company growth stocks, p. 115.  Yet, using Wang's figures from the 1/98
 			issue of Money (see IV,L above), since dollar-cost averaging increased by 78% returns of money
 			invested above a lump sum deposit over the ten years of 1987-1997, and did so by investors
			taking advantage of downward volatility to purchase more shares, one is still likely to be further
 			ahead dollar-cost-averaging into a volatile growth fund than dollar-cost-averaging his deposits
 			into a "stodgy" small cap value fund with its inhibited and thus lower downward volatility! 
 
	       P.	"Investor's Corner," Jan. 26, 1997 issue of Reg.-Cit.: the columnist notes that former manager of
			the mammoth Fidelity Magellan Fund, Peter Lynch claimed that far more money has been lost
			by investors either trying to avoid market corrections or by trying to anticipate them by errant
 			investment decisions than has been lost by the actual market corrections themselves.  The
 			columnist concludes patience is the best friend the investor has for removing investment risk.
			Andrew Feinberg, "Awaiting Armageddon," Individual Investor, Oct. '97, p. 126 agrees
 			with Lynch.  He notes how though Roger Babson, a Massachusetts economist was credited with
			accurately predicting the 1929 stock market crash "as indeed he did on September 5, 1929, spark-
			ing the famous Babson break, a 3% drop in the Dow"; he reveals that Babson had been bearish
			since 1926, and "his caution caused him to miss a 140% rise in the Dow" before that drop!  To
			make matters worse, "In early 1930 Babson turned bullish, a dreadful call."	

	      Q.	Lazlo Birinyi, Jr., "Money and Investments: Stock Trends - Diagnosticians who can't prescribe",
			p. 328-330, 12/1/97 issue of Forbes: " . . . technical analysis . . . is roughly analogous to
			consulting a fortune-teller . . . Technicians . . . have no interest in balance sheets or income
			statements as do fundamental analysis people].  Their tool kits usually begin with charts, where
			they look for recurring patterns in the hope they will recure one more time . . . I have over the
			course of years investigated the technical process in the hope of getting even a slight advantage	
			over other participants.  I found . . . That the simple truth is that chart patterns, from the familiar
			head-and-shoulders to saucer bottoms or pennant formations, are -- at best -- random in their
			results . . . The technical approach fails for a variety of reasons.  First, too many analysts --
			technical and otherwise -- lack discipline . . . Technical analysis also fails because of -- ironically	
			-- a lack of analysis . . . At their best technicians are like doctors who diagnose but not prescribe.
			At their worst, they are simply witch doctors."  Birinyi also documents cases to back up these
			claims: (a) Technicians forecast a rally in 1982 correctly, but in 1985 called for a drop, & 3 mos.
			later the market was up 8.6% only to end up 35.7% in 6 mos.  (b) Most technicians missed the
			notable 1987 market crash.  (c) At the 1987 market bottom, they predicted a deeper downturn
			and the market only rebounded.  (d) In 1994, analysts missed predicting the huge 1995 gains.
			(e) some analysts depend on the advance/decline line to predict the market's future, but in 1996
 			when the NASDAQ went down, the overall market went up 22%.  (f) The bull/bear indicator 
			(reading the market to go in the opposite direction the majority of analysts think it will go) has
 			more often than not proved to be a wrong indicator!  (g) Edson Gould's "hallowed cliche" that if
 			the Federal Reserve raises its interest rates 3 times in a row, that the market is in trouble, has
 			been countered by Gould in his own later writings!  However, people still follow it.  (h) The
 			Federal Reserve's figures are not all that dependable, anyway.  The Fed's figures show that from
 			1993-1997, there was a net outflow of money from stocks to the tune of $340 billion.  Yet, the 
			market during that time rose 140%, something that is hard to reconcile with the Fed's figures! 

	      R.	Investor's Business Daily, Oct. 4, '96, Doug Rogers, "Tight Focus Helps Three Managers 
			Rebound," (Interview with Harold Ireland, mgr. Evergreen Agr. Growth Fnd.) "I've been
 			thinking things (stocks) have been expensive for a while.  But in running money for 18 years, 
			I've seen that history has proved that if you keep your feet to the fire in the investment world and
 			not time the market, you will make some decent money . . . This is my third mutual fund, after
 			spending 16 years with Sir John Templeton and his original firm in Inglewood, New Jersey."

	      S.	G. Allan Sloan, Newsweek's Wall Street Editor, "Lusting after Wall Street," Newsweek, July 
			24, '95: " . . . you can get killed if you buy at the wrong time . . . the way for the average person to
 			make money in stocks is what it has always been: invest for the long term, don't try to outguess
 			the market, don't pour in every spare penny when prices rise or sell in despair when prices fall."

	      T.	"Investor's Corner," Reg.-Cit., 11/20/95 "So what about those magazine ratings? . . . Bob Fischer,
 			a certified financial planner . . . conducted a study for Registered Representative magazine that
 			examined how valuable magazine ratings are as predictors of future performance.  The four
 			magazines selected for the study were Money, Forbes, Kiplinger's and Business Week.  The
 			results were eye-opening . . . the fund group rated lowest by Forbes in 1992 actually performed
 			best in 1993 while the fund group with the highest rating did worst.  Business Week's and
 			Money's ratings also proved to be unreliable indicators of future performance."
			In connection with this point, the January 26, 1998 issue of Forbes quoted the Hulbert 
			Financial Digest's ratings of stock market investment recommendations by major newsletters for
 			ten years ending in Nov. 1997 and including the 1987 October stock market crash.  Out of 50 of 
			the top letters, only 16% managed to beat the Wilshire 5000 Index (with dividends reinvested),
 			and only 6% did so with equaling or beating the index's risks taken.

	      U.	"Investor's Corner," Reg.-Cit., 10/20/96: When the stock market corrects downward, investors
			have three choices: get out of the market, stay the course, or invest more.  Which choice is best?
			Mutual Fund News Service looked at what would have happened were these choices used with
			a hypothetical investment during the 20 per cent market downturn on October 19, 1987: (a) if an
			investor with $10,000 in stocks would have withdrawn his remaining $7,953 worth of stock 
			money and invested it in CDs, he would have recovered his loss and gained 28% more to equal 
			$12,823 by January 1, 1996.  (b) If an investor with $10,000 in stocks had stayed put, the
 			remaining $7,953 would have yielded $28,157 by January 1, 1996, a 181.6% increase.  (c) If an
 			investor with $10,000 had decided to buy another $10,000 worth of stocks after the downturn,
 			by January 1, 1996 he would have increased his amount by 217.8% to $63,561!  Thus, the more
 			one views downturns as opportunities, the greater the long-term reward.	

	      V.	"Investor's Corner," Reg.-Cit., 9/14/97: Britton Wilson, investment rep. with Edward Jones in
			Litchfield, Ct. reports on a point recently made by Louis Rukeyser on his television show, Wall 
			Street Week.  Rukeyser told how a hypothetical "unlucky" investor, investing $2,000 a year in
			annual lump sum investments between 1963 and 1973 happened to put his money in each year
			into the S & P 500 index at the worst time possible, just as the market had peaked.  Getting dis-
			couraged, he decided to stop depositing any more and just ride it out, leaving his total of $20,000
 			invested in the market.  His yield June 30, 1994 would have been a sum of $264,207.  When he 
			stopped making deposits in 1973, another hypothetical "lucky" investor started to invest lump
 			sums of the same amount into the same index, but doing so when the market was at its lowest
 			ebb, just before rising.  This investor, obviously encouraged, kept doing so from 1973 to 1993,
 			twice as long as the "unlucky" investor so that his deposits were $40,000.  However, by the same
 			date of June 30, 1994, his total nest egg would have been $256,037, still about $8,000 less than 
			the so-called "unlucky" investor simply because the "unlucky" investor had been in the market
 			before he had.  Thus, Rukeyser suggests we not time the stock market, but just stay invested.


      V.	Invest what you can as soon as the money is available ("in the morning"), and regularly, whenever 
		funds are available ("and until the evening do not let your hands be idle"), Eccl. 11:6a.

	      A.	Bottom Line Personal, "Investing Wisely Today Is Not Difficult," Michael Stolper.  "Myth:
 			Dollar-cost averaging is always the best way to invest.  Reality: The market goes up two-thirds
 			of the time, which means that by dollar-cost averaging, you're more likely to buy shares at higher
 			prices than lower . . . There's nothing wrong with systematic investing, but when you have a
 			lump sum, invest it all at once, so that all your money starts working for you."
			Conversely, Norman Fosback, Ed. of Mutual Funds, in the 10/98 issue said (p. 116): "If
 			you had started a dollar-cost-averaging program in the Dow Jones Industrial Average at the very
 			top of the market in 1929, you'd have been even by 1935, even though the Dow lost 90% of its 
			value during the Crash.  A buy-and-hold investor who jumped whole hog into the market at the
 			'29 high didn't get even until the 1950s." Thus, the best idea may be to make a moderate
			initial investment of a lump sum (say, 1/3 of it) and dollar-cost-average the rest in later!]

	      B.	"Investor's Corner," Reg.-Cit., 9/15/96: A study has shown that putting $5,000 per year into the
 			stock market S & P 500 index for 20 consecutive years at the worst, peak times of each year just
 			before the market corrected downward in each year, IF LEFT in the market for the 20 years
 			would still have yielded $465,397 out of that $100,000 invested! That's a 13.7 % annual
 			compounded rate of return.  Thus, it is always profitable in the long-term to invest money in the
 			market as soon as one has it . . . especially if one invests REGULARLY which even limits his
			negative exposure to such worst peak times via dollar cost averaging!

	      C.	Kiplinger's Mutual Funds '97, p. 1: "Now is always the best time to invest, if you . . . (invest)
 			aggressively for long-term goals and conservatively for short-term needs." Eric Tyson's
			Mutual Funds For Dummies, p. 129-213 reveals various instruments of investments for differing
			time frames of needs for returns.  He relates how money market instruments are for emergency
 			cash storage.  He recommends bonds or bond funds for needs of an intermediate time frame with
 			moderate risks of moderate term returns, broken down into bonds of a few years of maturity,
 			those of 7 to 10 years of maturity and long-term bonds of 15 or 20 years or so.  Finally, he shows
 			how stock funds are to be used only for long range plans, for shorter periods using moderate
 			growth-and-income funds; index funds and growth & aggressive funds are for long-term.]


Application (What I Do)



      1.	I recall my goal is not to become rich, but to obey 1 Timothy 6:6-14 and 5:8 by focusing on how
 		sensibly to plan to meet valid future financial needs in using God's money.  So I start prayerfully!

      2.	Avoiding options, futures and leveraged mutual funds, and NOT borrowing ANY money to invest,
 		for what I can keep invested for 10 years or more, (a) I follow God's leading in buying a few business
 		sector funds that can do well for obvious business trend reasons, cf. James 4:13-15.  (b) If God does
 		not lead thus, I buy shares of new, aggressive funds of reliable firms (as noted in Money or Mutual
 		Funds magazines or Morningstar Mutual Funds if the funds will soon close to limit their asset bases
		(the total moneys collected from investors in the fund); such funds are pampered with advantages
 		by their fund companies to attract and keep new cash and investors, and their restricted asset bases make

 		them nimble enough to move in and out of stocks quickly to maximize NAV growth.  (c)Third, if such
 		choices are not available, I buy shares of reputable fund company aggressive growth funds that focus on 
		quality companies with increasing earnings, which funds also trim their diversification down to 25 or 30
 		stocks to avoid lower quality stocks and maximize long-term returns.  I buy the most volatile of such
 		funds to take best advantage of dollar-cost-averaging (regularly investing set dollar amounts).  If saving
 		for retirement, I use tax-deferred IRAs, 401ks etc. via these funds.  I buy funds whose managers or
 		investment policies have at least 3 to 5 years of solid track records, and preferably much longer. 

      3.	With what I need to withdraw of investments between five and ten years, I buy much less aggressive,
 		widely diversified growth funds, or growth-and-income funds using the same track records listed above.	

      4.	With what money I need to spend within 5 years, I keep in federally insured money market certificates.

      5.	Then, whenever God supplies more money to invest, I invest and leave it in as long as possible no 
		matter WHAT the market does.  I invest in the fund(s) I own that are investing in currently out-of-favor
 		market segments or sectors to make the most of dollar-cost-averaging.  This takes the best advantage of
 		the most promising long-term moves that quality research on extensive history shows how the market
 		should act, and heeds Ecclesiastes 11:1-6!

      6.	I daily check on the progress of these investments.  Monthly, I watch summaries on these funds in the
 		magazines noted above.  I also quarterly check Morningstar's analysis of them and constantly evaluate
 		their managers' policies in light of Scripture!  If a fund notably lags its peer group's returns for clearly
 		errant	fund management or fading business sector reasons, and paying attention to any directives from
		the Lord, I move His money to a better fund!  Such money movements are for business reasons only,
 		NEVER for trying to TIME the stock market or to make a get-rich-quick profit.  

       7.	I keep current via the media on business, investing, etc. to stay on top of what I am doing and what 
		everybody else in the world's market is doing so as to act responsibly with the Lord's investments.