Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
According to M*, RNCOX does not exceed the S&P by it's ER over the last 1 and 3 years. Is it time to abandon this previously recommended "Core Fund?" I've sold off 2/3 over the past 2 years. Is it time to abandon the remaining third?
You noted: "I'm thinking of starting a tally on the MFO board of excess return per expense ratio. May be interesting to see which funds deliver highest value for investor expense."
>>>The total return of any fund obviously varies over a time period; being the luck of where an index fund or active managed has its holdings during "a time period". Our easy tools for viewing are the traditional time periods used at M*.
One can view the returns of a fund such as VILLX; which has a very nice return pattern for several years; but happens to be having its ass kicked YTD. So, it is named a balanced fund; but the current balance does not favor the current equity markets. Don't know where their other balance arrives.
Is there any method to really value an expense ratio and any contribution to a return???
Hey, hope all is well.
Since I'm not sure what return and downside protection are worth, I do hope Charles can produce an excess return per expense ratio. It almost certainly will prove enlightening and provide some rational guidance in fund (or ETF or index) selection.
Break-down of investments has me wondering what the 45% "other" represents. Any chance they're shorting stocks? Suppose that might be metals, real estate, commodities or derivatives. My snap answer here is that no fund is worth that high a fee. No doubt I'm missing something others are seeing in this fund. My highest fee fund by far is a commodities fund that charges 1.44%. The more I follow similar plain-vanilla funds I've held a decade or more, the more I can see the effects slight differences in ERs have on returns over longer periods. Wouldn't have believed that a decade ago. But, now I do.