Why is too much diversification considered a negative thing when dealing in a mutual funds? a. higher diversification means that the mutual fund costs a lot more and doesn’t provide as much profit. b. when there is too much diversification in a mutual fund, great success in a single stock doesn’t make much of a difference in the overall progress of the fund. c. if there are too many different investments, it would be too hard to keep track of them and some would inevitably get lost in the system. d. greater diversification means a drastic increase in taxes, so most companies avoid overly diversifying the mutual fund. b. when there is too much diversification in a mutual fund, great success in a single stock doesn’t make much of a difference in the overall progress of the fund.

When there is too much diversification in a mutual fund, great success in a single stock doesn’t make much of a difference in the overall progress of the fund.

The correct answer is B) when there is too much diversification in a mutual fund, great success in a single stock doesn’t make much of a difference in the overall progress of the fund.

Too much diversification is considered a negative thing when dealing in mutual funds because when there is too much diversification in a mutual fund, great success in a single stock doesn’t make much of a difference in the overall progress of the fund.

When an investor decides to participate in a mutual fund investment, he knows that its money is going to go to a pool of money collected from a group of other investors. These mutual funds need to be operated by people with experience in securities such as stocks, bonds, and other instruments. But the investor has to be cautious in not to diversify its portfolio when investing in a mutual fund. Too much diversification is considered a negative thing when dealing in mutual funds because when there is too much diversification in a mutual fund, great success in a single stock doesn’t make much of a difference in the overall progress of the fund.

it would be

the exact role and status of women in the roman world, and indeed in most ancient societies, has often been obscured by the biases of both ancient male writers and 19-20th century ce male scholars, a situation only relatively recently redressed by modern scholarship which has sought to more objectively assess women's status, rights, duties, representation in the arts, and daily lives; and all this from almost exclusively male source material dealing with a male-dominated roman world.

women in mythology

unlike some other ancient cultures such as the greeks who had formed a creation myth where woman was a creature secondary to man and, more specifically, in the form of pandora, a bringer of unhappiness and vices, the romans had a more neutral approach where humanity, and not specifically the male, was created by the gods from earth and water. ovid's metamorphoses, for example, does not specify whether the first human was a man or a woman. at least in a physical sense then men and women were not regarded as belonging to a different species as in the greek world, a view often reiterated in roman medical treatises.