Another short piece from IBD's quarterly mutual fund review addresses this question oddly. The story's lede: "The country's leading funds the past three months continued to add medical and transportation stocks to their portfolios as the stock market continued to defy the economy's wall of worry."
Oddly the story gives no hint of what qualifies as "a top fund" nor where they got the data, since portfolio disclosures tend to be dated.
David
Comments
OJ
The Economist, on the other hand, has an unfortunate tendency to editorialize pro-Market "between the lines", as you say, but on balance, is pretty decent. The other irritating thing about The Economist is that they never seem to find a war, military adventure or trouble spot that they don't volunteer the United States to take care of.
As for reporting and analyzing, still two of the best out there.
Most of the reporting in the WSJ is solid and the reporters are willing to run contrary to the opinions of the ideologues who control the daily three page homage to Karl Rove. The news coverage in the paper, for example, doesn't try to gloss over the human role in global warming while the editorial pages are utterly shameless in publishing ... well, trash, on the subject. I probably spend more time reading the Journal than any other single source though in part that reflects my learning biases; I subscribe to the NY Times online but simply don't enjoy the experience of reading the electronic version of a newspaper.
The Economist certainly endorses an activist American foreign policy. That also aligns with my biases except that the common combination of "ill-considered" and "activist" rarely works out.
David