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.
FYI: Value investors are known for being a hardy bunch, willing to buy into beaten-down stocks that everyone else thinks are a disaster. But cheap stocks have underperformed horribly over the past 12 years, and even some fund managers who specialize in buying them wonder in private if the technique no longer works. Could value be dead? Regards, Ted
Sometimes I grow weary of this horse race mentality and the bemoaning of one’s results if one type investment did better than another. Now, if someone else’s growth funds yielded 12% a year over a decade while your value funds yielded “only” 9 or 10%, would that be reason for lamentation?
You still did a lot better than someone who invested in soybeans, oil, GNMAs, or short-term bonds. Return should be commensurate with the risk undertaken. So you could argue nobody “lost” in the article’s comparison. Each investor was rewarded according to the degree of risk he was willing to undertake. Growth investing is generally deemed more risky than buying beaten up value stocks.
A good song that uses horse racing to analogize life might be George Jones’ “The race is on ...” . Too far out of bounds for me to link here. But, as I said, that’s the horse race mentality that sometimes pervades these discussions of relative performance.
No you don’t Ted. You’ve helped others out many more times than I have. But your failure to link did have me wondering whether you’d perhaps been nipping on that bottle of Sonoma ... ?
Comments
Your welcome, Derf
Sometimes I grow weary of this horse race mentality and the bemoaning of one’s results if one type investment did better than another. Now, if someone else’s growth funds yielded 12% a year over a decade while your value funds yielded “only” 9 or 10%, would that be reason for lamentation?
You still did a lot better than someone who invested in soybeans, oil, GNMAs, or short-term bonds. Return should be commensurate with the risk undertaken. So you could argue nobody “lost” in the article’s comparison. Each investor was rewarded according to the degree of risk he was willing to undertake. Growth investing is generally deemed more risky than buying beaten up value stocks.
A good song that uses horse racing to analogize life might be George Jones’ “The race is on ...” . Too far out of bounds for me to link here. But, as I said, that’s the horse race mentality that sometimes pervades these discussions of relative performance.
Regards,
Ted
Regards
Regards,
Ted