The guy who started Vanguard was on PBS last night. He claimed that in the LONG run, a fund that invests in every stock across the board can't lose. In my mind, a fund that invests across the board can't do better than the inflation rate in the LONG run. Why am I wrong? He said the safe (best?) technique was for a fund to keep a small percentage of the fund in small companies and a large percentage in large companies . . . proportionally across the board. In my mind, that doesn't compute because one Microsoft balances lots of losers. Why am I wrong? He said that all investing schemes ultimately fail - I agree - but fails to admit that his is a "scheme" as much as technical trading is. Why am I wrong? Seems to me that even Soros and Buffet will eventually blow it and knowing when to pull out of an investment company is as important as knowing when to sell a stock. Our money guy is a "my computer is faster than their computers" guy and for the last 10 years has beaten the market. We know that eventually he will blow it but Lord willing and the creek don't rise, (turning 70 next year), we won't live long enough to see it. Don't need the money, anyway, but it is fun to be able to spoil the grandkids.