《富达风云》书评

美国人在亚马逊上对该书的评价！

这书在海外的总体评价也一般，尤其是缺乏前瞻性的东西。然而，内地太难看到中文版的此类书籍了，故而我本人还是给了还行评价。1、Useful, but it has its limitations April 3, 1998By A CustomerFormat:PaperbackThis is a book that needed to be written: the explosive growth of the mutual fund industry in the past 20 years is one of the seminal events of our generation, and Fidelity is the most important mutual fund company out there. That having been said, I think that Diana Henriques could have done a much better job. The text is often jumpy and disjointed, and the actual events as Henriques relates them often don't warrant the build-up that she gives them in her introduction to them. More disturbing, I disagree strongly with many of her criticisms of Fidelity. Don't get me wrong: there are many valid criticisms of Fidelity that can be made, from the exorbitant fees it charges for average performance to the many ethical lapses that have plagued Fidelity in the past 10 or 15 years. But Henriques carries it too far. In one breath, she criticizes Fidelity for selling massive amounts of stock early on Black Monday in 1987 to meet the equally massive redemption requests that its funds had received over the previous weekend because most Fidelity funds did not have sufficient cash on hand; in the next, she criticizes the Fidelity Magellan fund for having too much cash on hand in early 1996, thus missing the big market rally that was in progress then. Likewise, she criticizes Fidelity's active role in corporate governance and then later criticizes Fidelity's policy that Fidelity funds in the aggregate cannot own more than 15% of any company. You can't have it both ways -- any organization which controls more than 15% of a publicly-traded company is going to have a big influence on the way that company is run. At its core, I think that Henriques's fundamental problem is that she believes that the Americans are and ought to be complete financial waifs who cannot be expected to make decisions about their finances in a responsible and informed manner. This assumption causes her to take Fidelity to task for things that Fidelity should not be taken to task for, and it undermines her books credibility.2、stars tantalizingly incomplete April 6, 1998By A CustomerFormat:PaperbackThe author tells the very interesting history of Fidelity Investments and FMR, from Ed to Abby Johnson, and through it, a history of the mutual fund industry in America. The author makes a case for Fidelity being an autocracy geared to selling shares in mutual funds at all costs. Certainly, the last few years have shed a lot of light on the seamy side of Fidelity. In Fidelity's defense, little is told of the "good guys" at Fidelity like longtime manager George Vanderheiden, and even the tale of Magellan is told haphazardly (what happened to Morris Smith?). Still, I found that I was pretty much unable to put it down for long, and it was pretty good read.Comment | 3、 Not an insider June 12, 2002By GEORGE R. FISHERFormat:PaperbackWouldn't it be interesting to know what really goes on inside Fidelity? They own every company in America and their proxies ought to control the outcome of every boardroom battle, what a subject! Plus, this is one man's creation and certainly a discussion of who he is and what he does would be interesting.But, no. Unfortunately, you can't look here for much of any insight into any of these subjects. Too bad.Comment |

很难读下去

不知是原作者写的问题，还是翻译的问题，可读性太差，对金融史而言，应该故事性很强，此书读来很无趣，人名太多太杂，彼得林奇也只是一晃而过，为什么不用蔡至勇而用格里（杰拉菲得）蔡？不知是原作者写的问题，还是翻译的问题，可读性太差，对金融史而言，应该故事性很强，此书读来很无趣，人名太多太杂，彼得林奇也只是一晃而过，为什么不用蔡至勇而用格里（杰拉菲得）蔡？不知是原作者写的问题，还是翻译的问题，可读性太差，对金融史而言，应该故事性很强，此书读来很无趣，人名太多太杂，彼得林奇也只是一晃而过，为什么不用蔡至勇而用格里（杰拉菲得）蔡？