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.
Wild. The only such article in history to indicate preference for Heebner over the Parnassus guys. I like both, but this must've been number-crunched and written by Heebner's nephew or something. And the omission of FLVCX sure is odd given what all is included. Just wild. Maybe Charles will opine.
Just looked at it. It gives CGM Focus an A+ down market rating and B up market rating. As Charles said, hard to follow in the Scribd format.
IIRC, Heebner did very well in 2000 and 2001, which might have gone into their down market performance rating. I agree with davidmoran: "must've been number-crunched and written by Heebner's nephew or something".
CGM Focus was -48% in 2008, vs. -37% for the S&P 500, and it was only up 10.4% in 2009 vs. 26.5% for the S&P 500. It was -26% in 2011, vs. up 2% for the S&P 500.
More often than not, Heebner will be either in the bottom decile or top decile of performance for any given year. I consider him to be a Wild West Gunslinger of the mutual fund world. Yet an unsuspecting very conservative/risk averse investor looking over those tables might see that A+ down market performance and be very attracted to the fund, not wanting to take risk!
His current "risk averse, A+ down market rated" portfolio includes: 19.26% of fund assets in one stock, Morgan Stanley. 32% of fund assets are short US Treasuries ! 12% of fund assets in Lennar Corporation Morningstar says: "he has constructed a nearly 29% stake in homebuilders such as Lennar LEN"
Hey, I certainly agree with the Forbes' author on full-cycle returns, as discussed in April commentary. Hope to be adding full-cycle returns to the single-ticker MFO risk return profiles soon...along with lifetime returns.
Becoming a fan of both lately. Examples like BRUFX and OSFDX demand these metrics, since each have had single periods of extraordinary performance, which inflate longer-term metrics.
Comments
Kind of hard to follow in the Scribd format!
Is this what used to be known as the Forbes Honor Roll?
As Charles said, hard to follow in the Scribd format.
IIRC, Heebner did very well in 2000 and 2001, which might have gone into their down market performance rating. I agree with davidmoran: "must've been number-crunched and written by Heebner's nephew or something".
CGM Focus was -48% in 2008, vs. -37% for the S&P 500, and it was only up 10.4% in 2009 vs. 26.5% for the S&P 500. It was -26% in 2011, vs. up 2% for the S&P 500.
More often than not, Heebner will be either in the bottom decile or top decile of performance for any given year. I consider him to be a Wild West Gunslinger of the mutual fund world. Yet an unsuspecting very conservative/risk averse investor looking over those tables might see that A+ down market performance and be very attracted to the fund, not wanting to take risk!
His current "risk averse, A+ down market rated" portfolio includes:
19.26% of fund assets in one stock, Morgan Stanley.
32% of fund assets are short US Treasuries !
12% of fund assets in Lennar Corporation
Morningstar says: "he has constructed a nearly 29% stake in homebuilders such as Lennar LEN"
Becoming a fan of both lately. Examples like BRUFX and OSFDX demand these metrics, since each have had single periods of extraordinary performance, which inflate longer-term metrics.
Don't see that unless you look a little closer.