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.
Just curious what you think is a better choice as a core holding for a large cap fund to augment Fidelity Contrafund, which I hold as a large cap growth fund. Thanks in advance.
Well, one has three times the holdings of the other, one is a third the expense or less, one's average company size is half the other's, one has 13% foreign and the other none, etc. etc. So an apple and an orange or something, perhaps.
Well, one has three times the holdings of the other, one is a third the expense or less, one's average company size is half the other's, one has 13% foreign and the other none, etc. etc. So an apple and an orange or something, perhaps.
Yes, I've noticed some of the differences as well. So, you don't believe it's fair to compare the two?
Well, they are comparable insofar as in the same largeish equity space. I do not concur in the view about focused and core; makes plenty of sense to my sense. But yes, not fair in the classic senses. I might do both. I mean, I hold YAFFX and PRBLX as my two core largeish equity funds. It is good to have some foreign, some say (not so much Wagoner, if you follow the press). Some are adamant about ER. Etc.
@willmatt72, I wondered about that myself as I saw the charts of these two side by side. It looked like YAFFX took just as big of a hit as the other too but it would be hard to determine their holdings at that time period.
Some advisers avoid Yackts and Romick et alia because they cannot abide such decision freedom. 'We pay them to invest, not hold cash, ever.' Etc. I remember reading articles on this in the late 1990s, actually.
If you are going to own actively-managed funds, it would seem to me that concentrated portfolios and investment flexibility make a lot of sense. For example, why would I pay for active management in a fund that has 200+ holdings and is essentially a closet index fund?
On the other hand, owning a mix of 5-6 'dynamic' funds, like FPA Crescent, Oakmark Equity & Income, Price Capital Appreciation, Thornburg Income Builder, BlackRock Global Allocation, etc. over the last 20 years would have provided investors with better long-term returns than the S&P 500 and much less volatility. So there is more than one way to look at this.
@willmatt72, I wondered about that myself as I saw the charts of these two side by side. It looked like YAFFX took just as big of a hit as the other too but it would be hard to determine their holdings at that time period.
The periodic moment to cash of YAFFX is why I have bought and held it for years
Comments
Regards,
Ted
Some advisers avoid Yackts and Romick et alia because they cannot abide such decision freedom. 'We pay them to invest, not hold cash, ever.' Etc. I remember reading articles on this in the late 1990s, actually.
On the other hand, owning a mix of 5-6 'dynamic' funds, like FPA Crescent, Oakmark Equity & Income, Price Capital Appreciation, Thornburg Income Builder, BlackRock Global Allocation, etc. over the last 20 years would have provided investors with better long-term returns than the S&P 500 and much less volatility. So there is more than one way to look at this.