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.
It ranking family funds, did anyone take into consideration the effect of a family, merging a fund or liquidating it ? If memory serves me right, Turner closed one or merged one a few years back. Wouldn't this detract from it's overall ranking ? Derf
No accounting for survivorship-bias, unfortunately. Yes, it can detract from the ranking...bad fund, close it/merge it...raise your family score.
Ditto for category drift. Ditto for funds of differing ages. Funds of differing share classes. Funds mis-categorized. Funds with recent manager changes. Fund with different AUM. Funds with new adviser ownership.
All that said, I still find it a useful measure. But then, most rankings become a flash point for debate.
I think we beat the Turner anomaly to death in David's announcement post:
Comments
No accounting for survivorship-bias, unfortunately. Yes, it can detract from the ranking...bad fund, close it/merge it...raise your family score.
Ditto for category drift. Ditto for funds of differing ages. Funds of differing share classes. Funds mis-categorized. Funds with recent manager changes. Fund with different AUM. Funds with new adviser ownership.
All that said, I still find it a useful measure. But then, most rankings become a flash point for debate.
I think we beat the Turner anomaly to death in David's announcement post:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/20721/the-may-issue-is-up#latest
I'll close this post, so you can post further thoughts/feedback to that one.