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.
Duc, in addition or instead, look into FPACX, BUFBX, ICMBX, and JABAX and see what you think. Check performance 2007-2011: all of them outperform VWELX and PRWCX handily and with much better dip performance and recovery.
For simplicity, also look into AOR and AOM, very handy combo ETFs with good performance, but ignore the precise names of these blends, which for some reason are miscategorized and hence misleading.
Was trying but failing to be polite, since the shortcomings of GO listings (and this is yet another fine example) have been partly hashed out here recently. And did you study the US News lists you cited? Whoa, puzzling in another, seemingly inexplicable, direction. Bruce and D&C and Fido, plus whoever Tributary is, before MAPOX ! wtf? Craziness.
Checked with Yahoo finance. PRWCX appears to be the winner over the last (10 yrs.) It beat BUFBX by 12.75 % !! Will it's performance continue over the next 10 years? Your guess is as good as anybody. Have a good weekend & lets move on.., Derf
Was trying but failing to be polite, since the shortcomings of GO listings (and this is yet another fine example) have been partly hashed out here recently.
The designation is given to funds that achieve top quintile performance in their categories based on Martin Ratio in all evaluation periods 3 years and older.
And let us all remember that, as of 2 yrs ago, the name and methodology of the Buffalo Balanced Fund were changed significantly, and the fund now has a different objective. IMO, it is not accurate to fuse the fund's record prior to this change with performance thereafter. In this case, "past performance is (certainly) not indicative of future results," or whatever that little jingle is.
With respect to performance within its category, I agree. But it's sure not hard to beat BRUFX with respect to their annual and semi-annual fund reports. They tell you almost nothing. Same with the website.
Their performance within category is so excellent, it naturally attracts you to want to learn more about them. The usual means for doing so are reading the fund reports and studying the website. In the case of Bruce, those two avenues don't turn up much.
Let's not use current Morningstar catategorization to say fund is balanced. Of course if fund management says it is balanced and/or the word is in the name then it is balanced. Some target date funds are also balanced and then funds like exdax which are "allocation " funds are also balanced. However to say fpacx is balanced is not right.
I think if you are looking at tactical allocation funds or funds that invest across stocks and bonds, you have more pickings. Again I don't necessarily mean tactical allocation Morningstar.
We should not hijack threads. Especially we shouldn't rub salt into the wounds of old bald farts in Texas who were not able to buy this fund and been rueing their fate for last 15 years
And did you study the US News lists you cited? Whoa, puzzling in another, seemingly inexplicable, direction. Bruce and D&C and Fido, plus whoever Tributary is, before MAPOX ! wtf? Craziness.
Derf, PRWCX is v good, yes, but the manager was not there for the first 2y of the past decade. Sounds minor, but if you measure his performance against others since summer 06, that is 8y, PRWCX is equaled by JABAX and significantly beaten by ICMBX with much better downside performance by both for the 08-09 'crash'. Meaning that anyone looking at balanced funds, like ducrow at the start here, will want to examine them closely as well, ratings and rankings and designations aside.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
Conservative Allocation Funds:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/rankings/conservative-allocation
Moderate Allocation Funds
:http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/rankings/moderate-allocation
Three conservative (VWINX, BERIX, GLRBX):
Three moderate (VWELX, PRWCX, MAPOX):
For simplicity, also look into AOR and AOM, very handy combo ETFs with good performance, but ignore the precise names of these blends, which for some reason are miscategorized and hence misleading.
Regards,
Ted
Have a good weekend & lets move on.., Derf
What does GO stand for?
Great Owl Fund.
The designation is given to funds that achieve top quintile performance in their categories based on Martin Ratio in all evaluation periods 3 years and older.
Here is link to definitions: http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2013/06/ratings-system-definitions/
And here's link to all GOs, as of 1Q14. We will update for 2Q early next month...
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/search-tools/great-owls/
But it's sure not hard to beat BRUFX with respect to their annual and semi-annual fund reports. They tell you almost nothing. Same with the website.
Their performance within category is so excellent, it naturally attracts you to want to learn more about them. The usual means for doing so are reading the fund reports and studying the website. In the case of Bruce, those two avenues don't turn up much.
I think if you are looking at tactical allocation funds or funds that invest across stocks and bonds, you have more pickings. Again I don't necessarily mean tactical allocation Morningstar.
Just my 2 cents.
Regard
Ted (Potato Chip Lover)
Ruffles: