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.
Tb, sorry, where are Vanguard funds in any of this fool article? What am I missing? Their balanced funds actually tick no better or more consistently than the other good balanced funds.
How do articles this lameass get published? If Goldberg is going to mention Fido bond funds, where's FSICX? He spouts over HDV, evidently not doing any real homework or looking at SCHD, a notably better volatility-reducer so far as I can see. And for the wee snapshot he cites, FPACX badly trails GLRBX. wtf? Does he get paid? I am in the wrong line of (non)work.
I agree with davidrmoran. If I look at the last 30 days or the last 60 days, I can find a whole lot of funds that did better than the S&P 500 and better than the funds that were mentioned. But to conclude that what happened to any fund in the recent mini-correction is an indication of what will occur during a real sell-off is a stretch. With few exceptions, I really don't give a rat's behind how a fund does compared to the S&P 500, the exceptions being those funds whose benchmark is the S&P 500. I am interested, however, in how various allocations of funds do TOGETHER when the going gets more volatile. And for us it is much more important to keep a long view of things rather than faunch over what happened in a very, very short time period, which is often meaningless. FPA Crescent FPACX is run by a great manager, and we use it in many client portfolios. It has actually under-performed the S&P, but we don't compare it to that index, and we certainly will not make a decision on whether to hold it based on the last few weeks.
I didn't see any Vanguard funds mentioned at all. It helps if one reads the article.
This is a very poor article as mentioned above. I find it funny that the author chose MACSX which has no correlation to the US indexes and in fact is closed to new investors.
I didn't see any Vanguard funds mentioned at all. It helps if one reads the article.
This is a very poor article as mentioned above. I find it funny that the author chose MACSX which has no correlation to the US indexes and in fact is closed to new investors.
Writers have quotas to fulfill. At some point of time we need to ask ourselves if every link needs to be posted on MFO.
Comments
How do articles this lameass get published? If Goldberg is going to mention Fido bond funds, where's FSICX? He spouts over HDV, evidently not doing any real homework or looking at SCHD, a notably better volatility-reducer so far as I can see. And for the wee snapshot he cites, FPACX badly trails GLRBX. wtf? Does he get paid? I am in the wrong line of (non)work.
This is a very poor article as mentioned above. I find it funny that the author chose MACSX which has no correlation to the US indexes and in fact is closed to new investors.
Read?
Who needs to read when you can't drink Bud Light?
Mona