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.
I personally like Kiplingers, as it was one of the magazines from which I learned about investing and money management. Getting a list of recommended funds from 2008 and calculating returns to date seems a silly exercise, and done for the sole purpose of casting Kiplinger's in a negative light.
I think of ALL the financial pron peddlers Kiplinger probably is the worst. I mean it has the least pron. That's not like saying much but that's all like the choice we made in the last presidential election.
Investing and making the right decision with respect to risk-return is hard work. Many financial magazines such as Kiplinger, Money and others try to over-simplify these matters. At time Barrons is also guilty of that in their annual round table discussion.
When I was a beginning investor I used to read magazines such as Kiplinger's, Money and others figuring they had answers. You learn with time and experience to become more discerning. Simple sells, I get it. Our last presidential election is proof of that.
In reference to the posted article for example why did the author choose a term of 9 years for his evaluation when he could have easily used 10 years. Funds are often compared over 1-3-5-10 year periods but he choose 9. You have to ask yourself why. One possible reason might be related to the occurrence of the big market swoon in 2008 and a time when go-go growth funds were punished the worst. Guess it makes those picks look more porny.
Next, he only choose one fund out of the 25 to grind into the dirt in comparison to his index fund. Why not show us all of the funds. Sure we can go look them up but he's the one calling us to arms.
Finally, why didn't he provide us with the returns for just 2008? Maybe (doubtful) these were the best 25 funds for that year but at least show us what happened.
All in all there doesn't appear to be much value in assetbuilder porn either.
I don't put much faith in theirs - or any MSM publication - list of funds to own. As mentioned above, they do tend to oversimplify things to reach the widest # of readers' experiences.
I've been a Kip reader for many years mainly for quick-skim "finance-lite" reading and a dirt-cheap subscription rate ... I probably get through it in about 10-15 minuts, if that. But every now and then I come across an investing or lifestyle article/tip that's interesting & gets me thinking, but generally speaking the publication plays ZERO in my investing decisions.
I've been getting Kiplinger and Money magazines for years. Like others have said, at about $10 a year (cheap) for each, they are worth it to me just to have something to skim through while sitting on the patio drinking a beer. There is nothing in them that you would act on without doing more homework, but I would say the same for posts here at MFO. It's all about listening to different ideas whether it be from magazines or article links or posts. Some will make sense, others you just shake your head.
Comments
I thought Assetbuilder was better than that.
Regards,
Ted
In reference to the posted article for example why did the author choose a term of 9 years for his evaluation when he could have easily used 10 years. Funds are often compared over 1-3-5-10 year periods but he choose 9. You have to ask yourself why. One possible reason might be related to the occurrence of the big market swoon in 2008 and a time when go-go growth funds were punished the worst. Guess it makes those picks look more porny.
Next, he only choose one fund out of the 25 to grind into the dirt in comparison to his index fund. Why not show us all of the funds. Sure we can go look them up but he's the one calling us to arms.
Finally, why didn't he provide us with the returns for just 2008? Maybe (doubtful) these were the best 25 funds for that year but at least show us what happened.
All in all there doesn't appear to be much value in assetbuilder porn either.
I don't put much faith in theirs - or any MSM publication - list of funds to own. As mentioned above, they do tend to oversimplify things to reach the widest # of readers' experiences.
I've been a Kip reader for many years mainly for quick-skim "finance-lite" reading and a dirt-cheap subscription rate ... I probably get through it in about 10-15 minuts, if that. But every now and then I come across an investing or lifestyle article/tip that's interesting & gets me thinking, but generally speaking the publication plays ZERO in my investing decisions.