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.
Some strong candidates. Its only for 2016 but I have been invested in twvlx since 1994 and tweix since 2006. IMO Mr. Davidson and team consistently have provided good risk/return performances over multiple time frames and cycles.
I tend not to spend much time with these publicity attention getters from M*. I do have two comments, one general, the other specific. The first is that in every stock category, there are index funds and ETFs that have done as well as the nominees (or almost as well as the nominees) with lower costs, sometimes much lower costs. The second is that I am continually aghast that M* overlooks (intentionally?) OSTIX managers Carl Kaufman and Simon Lee. They run a fund with extremely low risk and volatility with a very nice yield. A recent thread on this discussion board pointed out a few of M*'s inconsistencies with OSTIX. I suspect the winning funds (aren't you palpitating with excitement waiting for the announcement?) will see an influx of cash for a while. But I find this whole process outdated and overrated. Of course, JMHO.
I usually look at the nominees to make sure none of them are managers I'm invested with. Unfortunately, there is one this time.
I can understand that view most of the time...but this list actually has a lot going for it. I'm happy as a clam to own POAGX, and would love to re-enter TRMCX that treated me well in a prior employer's plan. But as Bob C. inferred, I wouldn't trade on this list as motivation.
A hollow award if I every saw one. While I might approach investing as a game, I don't want my managers to. Investing is an ongoing process - not a race. Winners aren't determined on the basis of a single year.
One nomination's mildly amusing however: For Fixed Income Manager of the Year: "Fixed-Income Investment Policy Committee, Dodge and Cox Income"
I like when a fund is committee managed rather than by some lone cowboy riding into the sunset. You have a better chance of continuity in the event the cowboy falls off his horse.
Of course, it helps to know which end of the horse is selecting the investments. Seems I have a horse in most of these races. Should I divest if they win?
I would vote for TRMCX manager Wallack for MoTY. I was able to purchase this fund in May 2009, just after it reopened to new investors. My last buys were in late January and February 2016. Later it didn't go unnoticed by me that the fund was doing quite well.. Mid year I saw the updated portfolio and saw why - Energy.
I believe that his management skills have added value in excess of the fees paid. I'm also in Primecap and have been for almost 20 years. I think they received this award in the past.
Of course, it helps to know which end of the horse is selecting the investments. Seems I have a horse in most of these races. Should I divest if they win?
First part: (easiest to address): Let's hope that the horse is being fed and stable cleaned by some good research and analytical people underneath. (no pun intended)
Second part: Dunno. I wouldn't sell - but wouldn't be pleased either. I've worried about the "popularity effect" for several years with PRWCX. Haven't sold, but keep only a small % of assets in that fund. Lagged noticeably last year. The ingredient that's hardest to figure out when thinking about the effect of money flows on a fund is how much of the AUM is relatively stable (committed for the long term) and how much will flee when things turn south. It's the rapid flow out during hard times that can really ding a fund and damage those who remain behind.
As an aside: If you like timing, one might try to ride a fund higher as the popularity grows and than bail about the time the popularity begins to wane. I'm pretty sure I've seen evidence in the past that some big investors do follow fund flow data with precisely this intention.
Comments
One nomination's mildly amusing however: For Fixed Income Manager of the Year: "Fixed-Income Investment Policy Committee, Dodge and Cox Income"
I like when a fund is committee managed rather than by some lone cowboy riding into the sunset. You have a better chance of continuity in the event the cowboy falls off his horse.
Seems I have a horse in most of these races. Should I divest if they win?
I believe that his management skills have added value in excess of the fees paid. I'm also in Primecap and have been for almost 20 years. I think they received this award in the past.
Second part: Dunno. I wouldn't sell - but wouldn't be pleased either. I've worried about the "popularity effect" for several years with PRWCX. Haven't sold, but keep only a small % of assets in that fund. Lagged noticeably last year. The ingredient that's hardest to figure out when thinking about the effect of money flows on a fund is how much of the AUM is relatively stable (committed for the long term) and how much will flee when things turn south. It's the rapid flow out during hard times that can really ding a fund and damage those who remain behind.
As an aside: If you like timing, one might try to ride a fund higher as the popularity grows and than bail about the time the popularity begins to wane. I'm pretty sure I've seen evidence in the past that some big investors do follow fund flow data with precisely this intention.