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.
This is the reason I was mad with Artisan. Big fund companies can persist with ideas they thought were good till people wise up and let performance speak for itself. Artisan liquidating their funds that did not garner asset or lost lot of money says two things (a) Managers have changed (b) Perils of taking mutual fund company public.
This is why TROW is to be commended. I don't know one fund company who's public but looks after fund shareholders first before stock shareholders. Or at least I would like to think that.
More power to Matthews. If the fund is performing and paying for itself, then there does not have to be any greed involved. If the idea they had when the opened the fund still hold true, fund should stay open.
Another fund that should have been put down was, VWUSX, Vanguard US Growth. A "3-Alarm Fund" back in the Fund Alarm days.
I held this fund as it imploded back in the early 2000's. I hold Vanguard management personally responsible for not pulling the trigger on this rabid dog. To make things worse management continued to support this fund by including it as part of a "fund of funds" offering, VGSTX. They have never owe up to such a move and I stopped holding my breath for an explanation. Most of my money is elsewhere as a result.
@bee, why? In another few years, that big decline on the chart will disappear out from the left.
More seriously, *this* was the moment I discovered I had finally got over "mutual fund love". That deer caught in headlight feeling I used to have when you just couldn't sell your "favorite" fund. Clearly VGSTX bought VWUSX when no one else would since VWUSX had stunk up the place. If that wasn't obvious, then it should be. It was quite obvious to me and I had said as much on fundalarm.
An individual investor can be their own worse enemies and I am no exception.
FundAlarm opened my eye to that reality with VWUSX. Thank you Roy and others.
To your point about "why?", even M* seem to want to give this old dog a bone as it describes the fund this way:
Vanguard U.S. Growth doesn't quite distinguish itself in a highly competitive field. There's nothing imprudent about this fund's approach to large-growth exposure.
Like most things we love....babies, significant others, mutual funds...never describe them as ugly. Instead, generalize with as few words as possible and enthusiastically say,
@bee, you know hindsight is always 20-20. Who knows? After a fund does badly, then someone buys it and looks at it after 10 years, it might have outperformed all others of its ilk.
Some people just get lucky. Others don't even know what they are investing and don't care. And then there are some people who KNOW something most don't and only then invest in a fund that's done badly. We all like to think we are smart and belong to the last category.
So tell me now, who has had the cajones to invest in SEQUX? Wonder how many at M* own it. GOODX is another example. Some who might have bought at the lows might be feeling good about themselves.
So we went off topic a little bit. Coming back to point, some fund companies do persist with low asset funds. INTLX is another example at 5.2MM and I've own it for years.
Comments
This is why TROW is to be commended. I don't know one fund company who's public but looks after fund shareholders first before stock shareholders. Or at least I would like to think that.
More power to Matthews. If the fund is performing and paying for itself, then there does not have to be any greed involved. If the idea they had when the opened the fund still hold true, fund should stay open.
I held this fund as it imploded back in the early 2000's. I hold Vanguard management personally responsible for not pulling the trigger on this rabid dog. To make things worse management continued to support this fund by including it as part of a "fund of funds" offering, VGSTX. They have never owe up to such a move and I stopped holding my breath for an explanation. Most of my money is elsewhere as a result.
More seriously, *this* was the moment I discovered I had finally got over "mutual fund love". That deer caught in headlight feeling I used to have when you just couldn't sell your "favorite" fund. Clearly VGSTX bought VWUSX when no one else would since VWUSX had stunk up the place. If that wasn't obvious, then it should be. It was quite obvious to me and I had said as much on fundalarm.
An individual investor can be their own worse enemies and I am no exception.
FundAlarm opened my eye to that reality with VWUSX. Thank you Roy and others.
To your point about "why?", even M* seem to want to give this old dog a bone as it describes the fund this way: Like most things we love....babies, significant others, mutual funds...never describe them as ugly. Instead, generalize with as few words as possible and enthusiastically say,
Some people just get lucky. Others don't even know what they are investing and don't care. And then there are some people who KNOW something most don't and only then invest in a fund that's done badly. We all like to think we are smart and belong to the last category.
So tell me now, who has had the cajones to invest in SEQUX? Wonder how many at M* own it. GOODX is another example. Some who might have bought at the lows might be feeling good about themselves.
So we went off topic a little bit. Coming back to point, some fund companies do persist with low asset funds. INTLX is another example at 5.2MM and I've own it for years.