Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

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.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Comments

  • @Crash & MFO Members: Here's how U.S. News & World Report which uses Zack's, along with M*, Lipper, S&P Capital IQ, and The Street to arrive at a consensus ranks the four funds listed in Crash's link.
    Regards,
    Ted
    ABALX: #5
    TRPBX: #22
    FBALX: #12
    FSGNX #87
  • Thanks, Ted.... Yes, my question-mark was deliberate. I had my doubts. FSGNX and ABALX carry a hefty front load, too.
  • Sigh. I was hoping that that we could have a list of funds without loads being interjected. In part because while you and I might not pay for advice, others do. And in part, because the fact that some people pay a load for a fund doesn't mean that you and I need to.

    One can purchase FSGNX with neither a load nor a commission at a variety of brokerages, such as Fidelity.

    Since we have brought loads into the discussion, it is worth pointing out that FSGNX (as we would purchase it, i.e. without a load) would likely rank higher than #87 in the US News list that Ted cited. That's because the US News ranking combine rankings from M* and others.

    While M* rates FSGNX two stars, it rates the load waived version FSGNX.lw three stars. (M* incorporates the effect of loads when it hands out stars.) So if US News were to use this higher M* rating, its ranking of the fund would likely move up as well.
  • That's good information. Thank you!
Sign In or Register to comment.