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.
I enjoy the entire product, but really look forward to Ed's commentaries. Forced to re-read last month's edition (for lack of anything newer), I got a laugh today out of Goeth's portrayal of insanity - which Ed quotes: “We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe.” ... Couldn't agree more.
I've taken the liberty of re-naming this post and bumping it now that April is posted. Ted provided a link above. Kudos to David, Charles, Ed and everyone who worked so hard on this. Possibly the longest and best yet. I can't do it justice. But a few take aways ...
David surveys the valuation "landscape" by presenting some widely conflicting viewpoints on current market valuations from the investment community.
Charles looks at bear market funds and past bear market performance. (Charles: I rather view this as an "exercise in futility" as the DODBX experience you mention attests. But ... great research and a commendable job!)
Ed allows that (if pressed) he would probably be able to put together a value-driven portfolio, even given today's lofty market prices - but one likely to try the patience of most investors.
David provides a summary of recent conference call and some insights into David Berkowitz's engineering background - and its applicability to investing.
You have to remember that we're writing for two different audiences. The "Briefly Noted" stuff generally isn't news to folks who spend time at the board, so I sort of assume that you'll skim or skip that section if you do choose to read through the cover essay. The audience of folks who are active on the board (operationalized as "have an ID and have been here in the past five weeks") is a bit under 200. There are lurkers, unregistered passersby, but I don't know how many.
Against that, we about 25,000 readers in total each month; the total varies by season, so there's a "plus or minus 2,000" there. While I try to encourage them to join in on the board, I know there are lots of folks who don't and won't. So, we've got to address their needs and interests, too. Hence the arguably redundant content.
I find David's facts on the MFO audience quite revealing. Do the ones who don't participate in the discussion forum go elsewhere for banter? Or are they just plain busy with life that the few moments they do spend on MFO stimulate their investing brain cells?
I enjoy the entire product, but really look forward to Ed's commentaries. Forced to re-read last month's edition (for lack of anything newer), I got a laugh today out of Goeth's portrayal of insanity - which Ed quotes: “We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe.” ... Couldn't agree more.
...bear market funds and past bear market performance...I rather view this as an "exercise in futility" as the DODBX experience you mention attests.
Could not help but go back and see if DODBX was ever lowest decile. Nope. Not really in its DNA. Ditto with DODGX. Income Fund is closest D&C offers to a "bear resistant" fund. (See summary table below...all rankings relative to category peers.)
What strikes me as extraordinary is that funds like Sequoia remain lowest decile across nearly all evaluation periods.
No one metric tells all, but for those sensitive to drawdown, I think this one warrants more attention.
In any case, thanks for the kind words...once again.
>> funds like Sequoia remain lowest decile across nearly all evaluation periods. >> No one metric tells all, but for those sensitive to drawdown, I think this one warrants more attention.
Right. Do you propose a different capture of it from UI? As discussed before, you would have to try and include manager tenure criteria.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2015/04/april-1-2015/
David surveys the valuation "landscape" by presenting some widely conflicting viewpoints on current market valuations from the investment community.
Charles looks at bear market funds and past bear market performance. (Charles: I rather view this as an "exercise in futility" as the DODBX experience you mention attests. But ... great research and a commendable job!)
Ed allows that (if pressed) he would probably be able to put together a value-driven portfolio, even given today's lofty market prices - but one likely to try the patience of most investors.
David provides a summary of recent conference call and some insights into David Berkowitz's engineering background - and its applicability to investing.
Lots more & and Thank you.
Regards,
Ted
You have to remember that we're writing for two different audiences. The "Briefly Noted" stuff generally isn't news to folks who spend time at the board, so I sort of assume that you'll skim or skip that section if you do choose to read through the cover essay. The audience of folks who are active on the board (operationalized as "have an ID and have been here in the past five weeks") is a bit under 200. There are lurkers, unregistered passersby, but I don't know how many.
Against that, we about 25,000 readers in total each month; the total varies by season, so there's a "plus or minus 2,000" there. While I try to encourage them to join in on the board, I know there are lots of folks who don't and won't. So, we've got to address their needs and interests, too. Hence the arguably redundant content.
For what interest that holds,
David
What strikes me as extraordinary is that funds like Sequoia remain lowest decile across nearly all evaluation periods.
No one metric tells all, but for those sensitive to drawdown, I think this one warrants more attention.
In any case, thanks for the kind words...once again.
Hope all is well.
c
>> No one metric tells all, but for those sensitive to drawdown, I think this one warrants more attention.
Right. Do you propose a different capture of it from UI? As discussed before, you would have to try and include manager tenure criteria.