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.
No mention of fund on the website but maybe one can get some insight into the management. The way I look at it right now, this fund was around during the financial crisis, its name suggest they know value investing, it has "income" in its name and drops close to 30% in 2008 and then does not recover better than its category. In short, I'm not seeing a single plus point and lack of any literature on the AMM website tells me they don't even want you investing.
Taking a cursory glance at this fund's basic profile numbers on the M* quote page, I see several things: (1) once again, M* has placed FAINX in the wrong category, an exercise that should be so straightforward in this case that it would be considered a simpler work problem on a Cave Man IQ test; (2) even against this relaxed performance measure, the fund doesn't measure up; (3) its 2.32 e.r. "seems a bit high," and total assets of 10m after 8 yrs would suggest the fund is "lightly followed;" (4) when I close my eyes, a creature comes into view; too dark to speciate but pretty sure it is a member of one of the annelid families.
FAINX has that beyond redemption kinda look about it. Perhaps a 2nd Amendment remedy would be appropriate. Hope this helps.
Taking a cursory glance at this fund's basic profile numbers on the M* quote page, I see several things: (1) once again, M* has placed FAINX in the wrong category, an exercise that should be so straightforward in this case that it would be considered a simpler work problem on a Cave Man IQ test;
Call me Cro-Magnon, but I don't see the obvious misclassification as a Moderate Allocation fund. It seems neither does Lipper, who calls it a "Mixed-Asset Target Alloc Moderate Fund". (Lipper generally rates it higher than M* - 4's, except for tax efficiency (5) and cost (1, obviously).
p. 13 describes Lipper's Mixed Asset target allocation funds. Table 2 shows how its mixed asset target allocation moderate funds line up with M*'s moderate allocation:
M* doesn't look at instantaneous snapshots of a fund (because there can be transient fluctuations), rather a fund's portfolio over the past few reports (not sure how far the lookback period goes). For the fund's first three years, M* classified the fund as conservative allocation. I'm inferring from the fact that the very initial classification (before a portfolio was published) was moderate allocation, M* looked at the actual portfolio and said that it was more conservative than the prospectus suggested.
Over time, that has shifted. It might be trending toward aggressive allocation, but doesn't seem to have gotten there yet.
Maybe I need to check with a Neanderthal - though that could turn out to be a dead end.
Comments
One manager has last name Wisdom and has written a book. Hmmm...
Here...
http://www.amminvest.com/files/Communications/Archive.html
No mention of fund on the website but maybe one can get some insight into the management. The way I look at it right now, this fund was around during the financial crisis, its name suggest they know value investing, it has "income" in its name and drops close to 30% in 2008 and then does not recover better than its category. In short, I'm not seeing a single plus point and lack of any literature on the AMM website tells me they don't even want you investing.
(1) once again, M* has placed FAINX in the wrong category, an exercise that should be so straightforward in this case that it would be considered a simpler work problem on a Cave Man IQ test;
(2) even against this relaxed performance measure, the fund doesn't measure up;
(3) its 2.32 e.r. "seems a bit high," and total assets of 10m after 8 yrs would suggest the fund is "lightly followed;"
(4) when I close my eyes, a creature comes into view; too dark to speciate but pretty sure it is a member of one of the annelid families.
FAINX has that beyond redemption kinda look about it. Perhaps a 2nd Amendment remedy would be appropriate. Hope this helps.
Congrats. Sent me to Wickipedia with that one!
This may help, it's Lipper's discussion of its categories, as well as how they align with M*'s:
http://www.lipperweb.com/docs/Research/Fiduciary/2009_02_Fund Classification Roadmap.pdf
(for completeness, here's M*'s descriptions of its categories: http://www.morningstar.com/InvGlossary/morningstar_category.aspx)
p. 13 describes Lipper's Mixed Asset target allocation funds. Table 2 shows how its mixed asset target allocation moderate funds line up with M*'s moderate allocation: M* doesn't look at instantaneous snapshots of a fund (because there can be transient fluctuations), rather a fund's portfolio over the past few reports (not sure how far the lookback period goes). For the fund's first three years, M* classified the fund as conservative allocation. I'm inferring from the fact that the very initial classification (before a portfolio was published) was moderate allocation, M* looked at the actual portfolio and said that it was more conservative than the prospectus suggested.
Over time, that has shifted. It might be trending toward aggressive allocation, but doesn't seem to have gotten there yet.
Maybe I need to check with a Neanderthal - though that could turn out to be a dead end.