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.
The "best" records are moving targets. While the article talks about REALLY long-term records, such as Oakmark Select, it also implies that shorter time frames for newer funds are just as valid in assessing manager quality. That's a little hard to swallow, but it does fit M*'s approach. As one poster noted (following the article), what M* describes as a few years of underperformance were really 6-7 years. How long SHOULD an investor wait for things to turn around? I think 8 years is a bit long to ask folks to hang around, don't you? I don't advocate jumping from one fund to another every couple of years, but I also think that M* gets quite enamored by some of its favorite "star" managers, and maybe gives them too much slack. All you have to do is look at who M* has featured as speakers and panelists at its big conference over the last 10 years, and you will pretty quickly see the number of multiple appearances by a specific group of folks. Coincidence? While I realize these "star" managers tend to draw more attendees, there are a lot of even greater "stars" who remain undiscovered. That's a plus for shareholders of those undiscovered funds.
Comments