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: After a recent talk to a small investment club in eastern Massachusetts, I was asked what one question I would ask a fund manager—if only allowed one question—before deciding whether to buy the fund. I asked the audience members to guess at what my answer would be, and none even came close. My inquiry was simple: “How much money do you have invested in your own fund?” Regards, Ted http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-most-important-question-to-ask-a-fund-manager-2014-10-13/print
Seems OK Fair enough, BUT there is a long time investment Rule, "Don't INVEST where you work" because if the company (fund in this case) goes bust so do you.. Maybe better question: "How much money do you have? and how did you get it? a list of past investments Please, what do you hold now?" IF he is unwilling to share this "personal" information when requesting same from you, Take a PASS...
@Tampabay: I've never been a believer in the so called 'eating your own cooking' theory. I could care less if a fund manager has any money in the fund he/she manages. The proof in the pudding is what kind of returns do they get. There is no evidence that funds who's managers invest in them perform any better. Regards, Ted
Returns are always important but are relative to certain changing conditions, Sectors,changing markets, economy, a million different things -3% could be good or +20% could be average, I want a successful MONEY manager, and I want to know his background, how successful is he? and I want to know HIS investments, just as he should/would request the same from me, then I could tell you If I want HIM managing my money...
@Tampabay: I've never been a believer in the so called 'eating your own cooking' theory. I could care less if a fund manager has any money in the fund he/she manages. The proof in the pudding is what kind of returns do they get. There is no evidence that funds who's managers invest in them perform any better. Regards, Ted
Businessweek, Jan 14, 2010: "According to a July 2009 study by fund tracker Morningstar (MORN), managers with more than a $1 million stake in their own funds beat 58% of peers, on average, over the past five years. Funds with no manager investment beat 46% of peers."
Whether this is credible evidence is debatable, but there is evidence.
Now the next sentence in this article from almost five years ago reads: "Fairholme's 13.2% annualized return has outperformed 99% of peers over 10 years. " (FAIRX's performance over the past five years since is at the 98th percentile.)
" "Fairholme's 13.2% annualized return has outperformed 99% of peers over 10 years. " (FAIRX's performance over the past five years since is at the 98th percentile.) "
The question for us Fairholme investors is, were the last 5 years mean reversion and Berkowitz has no particular talent, or were the first ten years the "mean" for him, and we'll soon revert back to that?
As far am I'm concerned, if the answer is the former, I may give up on active management except for very low-cost, group managed funds such as Vanguard's non-index offerings.
Comments
Maybe better question: "How much money do you have? and how did you get it? a list of past investments Please, what do you hold now?"
IF he is unwilling to share this "personal" information when requesting same from you,
Take a PASS...
Regards,
Ted
I want a successful MONEY manager, and I want to know his background, how successful is he? and I want to know HIS investments, just as he should/would request the same from me, then I could tell you If I want HIM managing my money...
Whether this is credible evidence is debatable, but there is evidence.
Now the next sentence in this article from almost five years ago reads: "Fairholme's 13.2% annualized return has outperformed 99% of peers over 10 years. " (FAIRX's performance over the past five years since is at the 98th percentile.)
The question for us Fairholme investors is, were the last 5 years mean reversion and Berkowitz has no particular talent, or were the first ten years the "mean" for him, and we'll soon revert back to that?
As far am I'm concerned, if the answer is the former, I may give up on active management except for very low-cost, group managed funds such as Vanguard's non-index offerings.