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.
FYI: Over the long haul, Morningstar’s gold-rated funds have topped their indexes. Below are descriptions of three of the firm’s less-well-known selections. Regards, Ted http://www.kiplinger.com/printstory.php?pid=12631
"Over the past 10 years through May 30, Morningstar’s gold-rated diversified U.S. stock funds (previously called analyst picks) on average returned 8.1% annualized, an average of 0.3 percentage point per year ahead of Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index."
When you consider that the Index fund probably has had little to no capital gains distributions, meaning it is very tax friendly and has excellent after tax performance.........was that extra .3% even worth it?
It calls into question the whole issue of trying to pick funds that beat an index.
It worked quite well in the developed foreign markets arena, but sure not in the diversified U.S. stock funds arena
Just read it again. They don't specify. So I think these stats are not meaningful. They really need to talk about performance AFTER they rated them gold medalists, as VF alluded to above.
Unfortunately, the article does not reference the data source. It would be nice to read the original study to see the methodology. We know the performance, but we don't know the dates the funds were deemed to be gold medalists.
Comments
When you consider that the Index fund probably has had little to no capital gains distributions, meaning it is very tax friendly and has excellent after tax performance.........was that extra .3% even worth it?
It calls into question the whole issue of trying to pick funds that beat an index.
It worked quite well in the developed foreign markets arena, but sure not in the diversified U.S. stock funds arena
I'm going to look at that article and see if it states.
They really need to talk about performance AFTER they rated them gold medalists, as
VF alluded to above.
Unfortunately, the article does not reference the data source. It would be nice to read the original study to see the methodology. We know the performance, but we don't know the dates the funds were deemed to be gold medalists.