4 Pricier Funds That Are Worth Their Salt

Ted

FYI: Fees are no friend to fund investors.
Over the long term, fees are among the best predictors performance, according to Morningstar. That means paying up for a stock picker is going to leave you fighting uphill from the get go.
Greg Carlson, Morningstar’s senior analyst covering equity strategies on the manager research team, finds just four — count ‘em — funds that charge above-average fees but still attain the research firm’s highest rating.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2015/05/04/4-pricier-funds-that-are-worth-their-salt/tab/print/

davidrmoran

I wonder about recency problems in such articles, how old Carlson is and what he himself has invested in or followed historically. Weitz had spectacular results in the later 1990s, I know firsthand, and made his name bigtime. So I was curious to see how this vaunted fund here had done against other known-good but overpriced vehicles like YAFFX and GABEX. Sure enough, if you go back to summer '97, WPVLX is awesome. But guess what happens if your start point is summer '99?

Moreover his 08-09 performance was famously worse than others, causing large abandonment.

Ted

@MFO Members: davidmoran makes an excellent point !
Regards,
Ted
http://online.barrons.com/public/fund/snapshot.html?symbol=WPVLX

Here is a Lipper Snapshot of WPVLX ,YAFFX &GABEX comparing total return:
http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/mutual-fund/compare?Tickers=WPVLX+YAFFX+GABEX&Compare=Returns

msf

There are some funds that M* gets enthralled with, data aside. WPVLX is one of them. Like David, I took a flier on this fund in the late 90s and got burned. I looked through the M* analyst report archive to find the following headlines:

3/2000: WPVLX's bet on financial may be worth the short-term pain it is causing.
6&7/2001: We think that this is the kind of fund to buy and put away for years.
11/2001: This could be a buying opportunity.
2/2002: This fund's strict attention to value has paid off over the long haul.
4,6,&10/2002: Despite its struggles, WPVLX is worth keeping.
1&2/2003: Better than it looks right now.
7/2003: Investors in this offering have long been rewarded for patience.
12/2003: This fund is worth waiting for.
3/2005: Is this glass half full, or half empty? -and- Not for everyone.
9/2005: We still think there's good reason to like this mutual fund.
5/2006: Despite a very tough year and a half, we thing this mutual fund still has the goods.
12/2007 & 1/2008: This fund fund is down but definitely not out.
6/2008: Be patient with this fund.
11/2008: Recent performance woes don't dim our support for this mutual fund.
4/2009: Investors should stick with this fine mutual fund.

9/2013: Take a bow, Wally Weitz et al. -
the analysis says: "this fund has never been better than duringthe past 4.5 years." After which it wound up in the 63rd percentile for all of 2013 (meaning it had a dreadful latter part of the year) and 82nd percentile for 2014.

Briefly on costs. The M* article concedes that ARTKX's cost is not above average, but they wish it were lower given the large size of the fund. But the article wasn't about sizes of funds, it was about costs, and ARTKX isn't challenged by a high cost.

davidrmoran

Incredible research, msf; tyvm. I did not even get burned then, or not badly, though I sure as hell did with my other 08-09 follies. I just got tired of listening to Weitz smooch Buffett and even tireder of M*. Its dislikes furthermore are just as staunch as its valentines, cf its takes on the greedhead Gabelli.