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.
In closing, let me remind you of that wonderful scene where Orson Welles, playing Harry Lime in The Third Man says,
… in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love – they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did they produce? The cuckoo clock.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the consolidated fee litigation regarding the Harbor International and and High-Yield Bond Funds: “Defendant charges investment advisory fees to each of the Funds that include a mark-up of more than 80% over the fees paid by Defendant to the Subadvisers who provide substantially all of the investment advisory services required by the Funds.” (Zehrer v. Harbor Capital Advisors, Inc.)
Early in 2014, it was clear that assets were flowing strongly into liquid alternatives, with twelve-month growth rates hovering around 40% for most of the first half of the year. While the growth rates declined as the year went on, it was clear that 2014 was a real turning point in both asset growth and new fund launches. In total, more than $26 billion of net new assets flowed into the category over the past twelve months.
Matthew Page and Ian Mortimer are co-managers of Guinness Atkinson Global Innovators (IWIRX) and Guinness Atkinson Dividend Builder (GAINX), both of which we’ve profiled in the past year.
Finally, Matthews Asia Strategic Income (MAINX) celebrated its third anniversary and first Morningstar rating in December, 2014. The fund received a four-star rating against a “world bond” peer group.
Has anyone gone back and tested the profiled funds here for performance, like M* does with its analyst picks and 5* funds? I thought about this after reading David's excellent commentary, much of which questions the logic of investing in actively-managed funds like the ones MFO profiles.
I've come to agree with the basic conclusion -- one should either buy index funds, or low-cost funds that are team managed and have a deep bench -- yet I keep on investing instead in quirky little funds with a star manager that are profiled on this site. (And I've done well with them, thanks David!)
So I'm wondering if on MFO we (or really, David, Charles, and Ed) have found the magic potion, or if we're just fooling ourselves like everyone else. I'm inclined to think the former, but I would think that, wouldn't I?
There is no page, however, that shows rankings of all profiled funds across various time frames. That's is similar to something our friend Ed Studzinski has also been asking about lately. Will work to make available.
In meantime, you can use Risk Profile page to get those risk/return rankings by simply entering symbol(s).
All the rankings are strictly backward looking. Although 20-year Great Owls certainly have to be doing something right. (To find those, go to MultiSearch page and click on Great Owls only and select 20 year age criteria. Or, peruse the Great Owl page.)
As for "magic potion". I think David's profiles are the closest thing we have. That, and his advice to have a plan. One that aligns with your own risk temperament and timeline.
On the thornier issue of active versus index. That probably falls into the category of knowing yourself, which again is a mix of risk temperament, investment timeline, and perhaps expectations.
My two cents...for what it's worth.
Happy New Year!
PS. If Ted shares a stock recommendation, I'd listen twice .
Thanks, Charles, I hadn't known about the dashboard. I just took a quick glance, and unless I'm misunderstanding, they've pretty much all underperformed the S&P since they were founded. Admittedly, most aren't U.S. large cap equity funds, but still, it's pretty noteworthy.
And yes, I listen carefully to everything Ted says!
You noted: "PS. If Ted shares a stock recommendation, I'd listen twice"
Is there a recent list from 2014, I presume? Nothing against Ted. He has periodically listed some of his holdings and I suspect he will not run out of money in his lifetime; as he has had some fine choices.
We are constantly surrounded with E.F. Hutton moments......"When E. F. Hutton talks, people listen". The recent Josh Brown links apparently highlight this continuation; of recommendations and then things don't move in the expected direction. "Expected direction" may be in the eyes of the beholder and nothing more than predictions, eh?
I suspect, Charles; one may find some interest in a thread here regarding MFO member portfolios and what percentage of holdings are individual stock versus any form of fund holding. Of more interest may be the 2014 returns of funds versus stocks held by those here. 'Course, this data would only be valid to the point of what impact any of these holdings have on one's overall portfolio. Not unlike the current thread regarding which of one's fund holdings surpassed SPY for 2014. The easy guess would be healthcare related funds, eh? Yet, the lady across the street has only 3% of her portfolio in FSPHX and the other 97% in laddered CD's. Well, she did better in 2014 than she would have without FSPHX; but it doesn't really matter much in this case, as portfolio impact is so small.
I'll quit......back to the flu meds for me....have the type "a"; and tis much fun.
My wife, daughter, son-in-law, and grand-daughter have all been sick too. (My body is too corrupted with caffeine and alcohol to be a target for viruses.)
Yes, thanks. Got an espresso machine for xmas, so get jacked every morning even more than usual. Plus some whiskies, for later in the day (easy to buy presents for).
I remain weller than not. I hope your family is mending. Nasty bugs going around, as always.
Death Wish Coffee, David. How could you not be intrigued by a product that gets reviews like:
Here's a general rundown of my experience with the first pot of Death Wish Coffee.
1st cup - Hmm, this aint bad. Tastes pretty good. I like it. 2nd cup - Dang, I'm feeling groovy. Let's get some work done. 3rd cup - Didyaknowscientiststhinkthereareparalleluniversesandlikeyoucouldbelivinganinfiniteamountoflivesindifferentrealities? 4th cup - OH. MY. GOD. THERE ARE ANTS CRAWLING UNDER MY SKIN, DUDE!
Summation: Dang good. A swift kick in the ass. But really expensive.
There were funnier reviews, but several were a bit ... ummm, less family-friendly in their descriptions of the users' delight.
"As I watch the postings on the Mutual Fund Observer’s discussion board, I suspect that achieving better than average investment performance is not what motivates many of our readers. Rather, there is a Walter Mittyesque desire to live vicariously through their portfolios. And every bon mot that Bill (take your pick, there are a multitude of them) or Steve or Michael or Bob drops in a print or televised interview is latched on to as a reaffirmation the genius and insight to invest early on with one of The Anointed."
That last sentence sounds a bit Dickensian. Very nice!
Mittyesque? Dunno about that. I think there's a myriad of reasons why people post investment decisions - some tantamount to bathing in the glow the gambler feels having bet on his favorite steed. -
Thanks David and all who contribute to this marvelous monthly publication.
Comments
I am cautiously optimistic!
Does that mean I'm oximoronic?
You forgot the one about "window dressing"...
Although granted, more of a critic's phrase than adviser proper.
Can't make this stuff up!
Hmmm...what a mistake that was, in retrospect.
Hear, hear. Bravo!
I've come to agree with the basic conclusion -- one should either buy index funds, or low-cost funds that are team managed and have a deep bench -- yet I keep on investing instead in quirky little funds with a star manager that are profiled on this site. (And I've done well with them, thanks David!)
So I'm wondering if on MFO we (or really, David, Charles, and Ed) have found the magic potion, or if we're just fooling ourselves like everyone else. I'm inclined to think the former, but I would think that, wouldn't I?
The MFO Dashboard attempts give quick assessment of lifetime performance of all funds profiled to date.
Here's link...Fund Dashboard.
There is no page, however, that shows rankings of all profiled funds across various time frames. That's is similar to something our friend Ed Studzinski has also been asking about lately. Will work to make available.
In meantime, you can use Risk Profile page to get those risk/return rankings by simply entering symbol(s).
All the rankings are strictly backward looking. Although 20-year Great Owls certainly have to be doing something right. (To find those, go to MultiSearch page and click on Great Owls only and select 20 year age criteria. Or, peruse the Great Owl page.)
As for "magic potion". I think David's profiles are the closest thing we have. That, and his advice to have a plan. One that aligns with your own risk temperament and timeline.
On the thornier issue of active versus index. That probably falls into the category of knowing yourself, which again is a mix of risk temperament, investment timeline, and perhaps expectations.
My two cents...for what it's worth.
Happy New Year!
PS. If Ted shares a stock recommendation, I'd listen twice
And yes, I listen carefully to everything Ted says!
You noted: "PS. If Ted shares a stock recommendation, I'd listen twice"
Is there a recent list from 2014, I presume?
Nothing against Ted. He has periodically listed some of his holdings and I suspect he will not run out of money in his lifetime; as he has had some fine choices.
We are constantly surrounded with E.F. Hutton moments......"When E. F. Hutton talks, people listen". The recent Josh Brown links apparently highlight this continuation; of recommendations and then things don't move in the expected direction. "Expected direction" may be in the eyes of the beholder and nothing more than predictions, eh?
I suspect, Charles; one may find some interest in a thread here regarding MFO member portfolios and what percentage of holdings are individual stock versus any form of fund holding. Of more interest may be the 2014 returns of funds versus stocks held by those here.
'Course, this data would only be valid to the point of what impact any of these holdings have on one's overall portfolio.
Not unlike the current thread regarding which of one's fund holdings surpassed SPY for 2014. The easy guess would be healthcare related funds, eh?
Yet, the lady across the street has only 3% of her portfolio in FSPHX and the other 97% in laddered CD's. Well, she did better in 2014 than she would have without FSPHX; but it doesn't really matter much in this case, as portfolio impact is so small.
I'll quit......back to the flu meds for me....have the type "a"; and tis much fun.
Take care,
Catch
My wife, daughter, son-in-law, and grand-daughter have all been sick too. (My body is too corrupted with caffeine and alcohol to be a target for viruses.)
Hope you feel better soon.
Happy New Year!
c
you say this as though it's a bad thing
Happy New Year David!
Hope all is well.
I remain weller than not. I hope your family is mending. Nasty bugs going around, as always.
Here's a general rundown of my experience with the first pot of Death Wish Coffee.
1st cup - Hmm, this aint bad. Tastes pretty good. I like it.
2nd cup - Dang, I'm feeling groovy. Let's get some work done.
3rd cup - Didyaknowscientiststhinkthereareparalleluniversesandlikeyoucouldbelivinganinfiniteamountoflivesindifferentrealities?
4th cup - OH. MY. GOD. THERE ARE ANTS CRAWLING UNDER MY SKIN, DUDE!
Summation: Dang good. A swift kick in the ass. But really expensive.
There were funnier reviews, but several were a bit ... ummm, less family-friendly in their descriptions of the users' delight.
The Other David
Will do a double espresso when I get it. Then that night it's Death's Door gin. Or maybe that morning, to get those ants out.
As Mick J explained, 'I was a soigeon, till I start to shike.' (You Got Me Rockin'.)
That last sentence sounds a bit Dickensian. Very nice!
Mittyesque? Dunno about that. I think there's a myriad of reasons why people post investment decisions - some tantamount to bathing in the glow the gambler feels having bet on his favorite steed.
-
Thanks David and all who contribute to this marvelous monthly publication.