he broad-market index funds championed by the late John Bogle have a problem. They’re boring. For sizzle, go to Van Eck Associates Corp.
Jan van Eck in New York City’s Tribeca neighborhood. When his money-manager brother died young of ALS, he had to carry on the business solo.One of Van Eck’s funds follows a handcrafted index of Chinese companies that omits the banks and state-run enterprises that dominate mainstream indexes. It has climbed 36% this year.
Is that a prudent way to invest? Maybe. The answer coming from Jan van Eck, the cautious 55-year-old Stanford law graduate who presides over this empire of risk, is dutifully circumspect. “A steel ETF is not designed for the average retirement plan,” he intones. “It’s a tool for portfolio managers.” How did a smallish money manager wind up with the first, and sometimes still the only, ETF for faraway places like Egypt? Or for a category covering obscure minerals mined in Australia? “We’re an American firm, but we’ve always had an international perspective,” Van Eck says.
Governments borrow money and governments print money, Von Mises lectured. That’s a recipe for inflation. Take refuge in hard assets. Jan van Eck continues to extract value from hard assets, with funds devoted to bullion, larger gold miners, inflation hedges and natural resource producers. He also has returned the company to its globalist roots. Among his overseas adventures are a German subsidiary designing custom indexes and a Dutch operation selling ETFs to Europeans. The lineup for U.S. customers includes, besides single-country funds, six ETFs that hold overseas bonds.
Should invest in Brazil, the better place to make money being consciously cautious where to risk
Am I the only one hoping 'empire of risk' is a classic boardgame reference? risk worlddomination
Business Business Latest News, Business Business Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: CNBC - 🏆 12. / 72 Read more »
Source: Forbes - 🏆 394. / 53 Read more »
Source: MarketWatch - 🏆 3. / 97 Read more »
Source: Forbes - 🏆 394. / 53 Read more »
Source: Forbes - 🏆 394. / 53 Read more »
Source: Forbes - 🏆 394. / 53 Read more »