10 Investments You Don't Need
From absolute-return funds to shares of bankrupt companies, steer clear of these lemons.
By Elizabeth Ody, Associate Editor, Kiplinger's Personal Finance
Jeffrey R. Kosnett, Senior Editor, Kiplinger's Personal Finance
July 23, 2009
- Comments
- Email This Article
- Print This Article
- Order a Reprint
Advertisement
With so much flotsam littering the investment universe, we usually limit ourselves to pointing you toward the few stocks, bonds and funds worthy of your portfolio. But occasionally there come along new products so hazardous to your wealth that they merit a spotlight all their own.
In our Hall of Shame, we list the most idiotic investment ideas around. Some are gimmicks, others prey on investors' fears and a few are downright silly.
RELATED LINKS![]() | |||
![]() |
20 Ways to Waste Your Money | ||
![]() |
Why I Would Avoid Index Funds | ||
![]() |
Avoid This Principal-Protection Fund | ||
Single-state stock ETFs
In a pitch to local pride, one promoter is trying to launch exchange-traded funds that track indexes of Texas and Oklahoma stocks. Those states are in better financial shape than most, but in each case the ETF would be dominated by energy stocks. Moreover, why should anyone care whether a producer of oil and gas -- which, after all, are commodities -- hails from Dallas or Tulsa rather than Denver or Dubai?
Two years ago, a different outfit toyed with StateShares. It was the same idea, but on a national basis-that is, an ETF for each of the 50 states. It never came to fruition, and just as well: The wheels would have come off the Michigan fund. The New York portfolio would have gone the way of AIG, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and the rest of what used to be known as Wall Street. Good businesses just aren't this local anymore.
REITs under lock and key
How can you fathom a real estate investment that denies you the opportunity to gain from rising property values? In a "non-traded," or private, real estate investment trust, you pay a fixed price (typically $10) for each unit. You get regular dividends from the income produced by rents from the offices, shopping centers or what have you. But the private REIT units don't trade -- except during certain windows of time when you can redeem them to the issuer on the issuer's terms.
No problem, you may say, given that the shares of traditional, publicly traded REITs crashed during the bear market (along with so many other kinds of stocks). Property values will surely recover, however, and prices of public REITs will rise to reflect those higher values. But private REIT investors get no such benefit unless the trust liquidates-and even then, double-digit-percentage sales charges and high annual fees will erode the gains. Moreover, many private REITs have suspended all redemptions. That has the regulatory group Finra examining the sale and promotion of these illiquid deals.
Overpriced buffet with Buffett
No offense to the Oracle of Omaha, but the Toronto investment firm that recently won an auction for the right to have lunch with Warren Buffett definitely overpaid. Even a few hours with the Great One isn't worth $1.68 million. Surely, whoever attends from the victor, Salida Capital, will walk away stuffed with folksy Nebraskan wisdom. And Buffett, after all, isn't keeping the money, which is going to charity.
A smarter way to pick Buffett's brain is to buy shares of Berkshire Hathaway itself. With $1.68 million, you could have bought 17 shares of Berkshire's Class A shares (symbol BRK-A) at the going rate (as of July 23) of $93,500 each. With the stock trading at 1.39 times book value (assets minus liabilities), the folks at Salida would have gotten a better deal. And they'd have had $90,800 left over in pocket change -- enough to pay for a few repasts at Canada's finest restaurants and cover the cost of traveling to Omaha next May for Berkshire's annual meeting, where Buffett normally waxes eloquent for hours about the markets, the economy and his company.
Currency roulette
True story: One day not long ago, a New York City subway car was lined from end to end with ads for a get-rich-quick trading scheme involving the dollar, the euro, the British pound and luck. To play, you need $2,000, an understanding of all the flashing numbers on your computer screen, and the chutzpah to guess when and whether the U.S. dollar will be worth more or fewer scraps of the world's other currencies.
This game goes on all day and all night, so you can wake up that much richer-or poorer. It's like electronic roulette at a casino, except roulette is undeniably a game of chance, while promoters of currency trading claim that "forex" (foreign exchange) involves skill and knowledge. An expert told us that 90% of those who try this stuff lose money. That's unacceptable for something that's held out as an investment instead of a wager.
- Comments
- RSS
Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy





Reader Comments (5)
Posted by: Andrew Mills at 07/26/2009 05:00:08 PM
Yes, it would be smart to avoid having lunch with the "Buffoon of Omaha- Warren Buffett". After all, he was the "so-called guru" of investment advice who in October 2008 implored the public to "buy stocks-I am!" What an idiotic statement from a public figure who clearly can afford to "buy and hold" stocks- not like most people. The average person, when the market declined, lost substantial money and don't have the luxury of years to wait for the prices to again recover! Thank goodness I knew better...
Posted by: nick varrato at 07/26/2009 09:51:01 PM
very helpful
Posted by: monkeyfurball at 08/02/2009 12:50:38 AM
Good advice. That last one reminds me of the the gold bulls---you know, the guys who hate stocks at all times but love their yellow metal. I sure hope they love their yellow metal the past 4 months or so while stocks have risen 30% and gold has done nothing.
Posted by: Howard J at 08/29/2009 11:28:34 AM
re: "sucker's bet" while shiller's housing shares (UMM and DMM) arent for everyone (including me)...the reporter has not done any homework. I began watching the macroshares in the past month after seeing a huge rally in UMM. one thing is clear to anybody who takes even a quick look at the prospectus or marketing stuff - these things are not ETFs. they have a maturity date, do not have a daily performance objective like levered/inverse etfs, and thus don't suffer the same shortcomings for long-term investors. Like the trillions$ of financial instruments other than etfs, Shiller's products have market prices that trade at premiums & discounts to NAV or book value. this is normal and makes sense. Shiller has been trying to bring price discovery and risk management to real estate for decades. Short of buying and selling brick & mortar, can you name another way to in effect invest in or hedge a diversified portfolio of single family housing more efficiently? given how inefficiencies and lack of price discovery in housing contributed to the bubble & bust, can you think of why these "macroshares" might - just might - have been inspired by something more than greed and opportunism by Shiller, as the above snippet implies?
Posted by: Scott Emes at 09/02/2009 04:28:30 PM
The concept of 'a good company is a good company why should you care where they are located' is not necessarily a wrong one if someone is looking to identify stocks based solely on quantitative measures or a desire for exposure in a sector like energy. That said, the spirit of community in states like Oklahoma and Texas is extremely high...is there a better example of a state with pride than Texas? Most of the investors in a fund such as these are likely to come from the local community. The concept of keeping the money 'in house' is one of things that will appeal to local investors in these two states whereas the authors' examples of Michigan and NY is like comparing apples and oranges. Time will tell but if the Oklahoma fund continues to achieve better performance and a higher alpha than a more diversified energy etf because of its concentration in a few energy companies, then wouldn't it be considered a sound investment? Doesn't the ability to sell an energy ETF at a loss, buy the Oklahoma fund, take the tax write-off, stay exposed to the sector and then 30-days later re-evaluate your positions make sense? Regardless, putting these funds in their hall-of-shame I think goes a bit too far.