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.
The NASDAQ list is the same messed up NerdWallet piece that I wrote about in June. These are not the worst mutual funds - they're the highest-expense share classes of funds with over $125 million in assets and, in many cases, the low-expense A and A load-waived classes are reasonably competitive. An example would be Federated Prudent Bear "A" (BEARX) and "C" (BERCX).
It's amazing how much distribution and attention a single, careless piece of ... uhh, research receives.
Insert "Snowball quits growling" about here.
I'd almost imagine that volatility and niche focus might be better predictors of "worst". ProFund Ultra Emerging Markets (standard deviation over 40, annualized losses of 22%) would be in the running. Firsthand Alternative Energy (up 50% this year - buy! buy! buy!) has managed an annual loss of about 14%, a standard deviation over 30 and an alpha of negative 32. ING's Trust Putin fund has annual returns ranging from negative 70 and plus 125.
Worst one? I'm tired of bashing the Hussman fund, HSGFX, but it fits your question.
But I'll also throw precious metal/miner funds into the mix. Not worth holding IMHO. I've owned USAGX and TGLDX in the past and I know I personally don't have the fortitude to hold them for 10 years.
USAGX for example is down -6% over 5 years. Down -16% over 3 years. At the same time, you could have owned a decent LC fund like YACKX and made +14% annually over the last 5 years and 17% over the last 3 years. If USAGX was held 10 years, it returned about the same as YACKX, about 11%. But holy-cow, USAGX had more than 2x the volitility (measured by standard dev.). I dare say "most" investors wouldn't be able to hold a fund with a 10 year standard deviation of 36% (YACKX had a stdev of 15% in comparison).
Yeah, I know I'm data-mining comparing these two funds. But I'm just trying to illustrate a point. I think PM funds are not a good investment for the average-Joe.
Comments
http://www.johndessauerinvestments.com/uploads/June_2013.pdf
muni news
http://www.fmsbonds.com/News/bond_article.asp?id=443
The NASDAQ list is the same messed up NerdWallet piece that I wrote about in June. These are not the worst mutual funds - they're the highest-expense share classes of funds with over $125 million in assets and, in many cases, the low-expense A and A load-waived classes are reasonably competitive. An example would be Federated Prudent Bear "A" (BEARX) and "C" (BERCX).
It's amazing how much distribution and attention a single, careless piece of ... uhh, research receives.
Insert "Snowball quits growling" about here.
I'd almost imagine that volatility and niche focus might be better predictors of "worst". ProFund Ultra Emerging Markets (standard deviation over 40, annualized losses of 22%) would be in the running. Firsthand Alternative Energy (up 50% this year - buy! buy! buy!) has managed an annual loss of about 14%, a standard deviation over 30 and an alpha of negative 32. ING's Trust Putin fund has annual returns ranging from negative 70 and plus 125.
So many fine candidates!
As ever,
David
But I'll also throw precious metal/miner funds into the mix. Not worth holding IMHO. I've owned USAGX and TGLDX in the past and I know I personally don't have the fortitude to hold them for 10 years.
USAGX for example is down -6% over 5 years. Down -16% over 3 years. At the same time, you could have owned a decent LC fund like YACKX and made +14% annually over the last 5 years and 17% over the last 3 years. If USAGX was held 10 years, it returned about the same as YACKX, about 11%. But holy-cow, USAGX had more than 2x the volitility (measured by standard dev.). I dare say "most" investors wouldn't be able to hold a fund with a 10 year standard deviation of 36% (YACKX had a stdev of 15% in comparison).
Yeah, I know I'm data-mining comparing these two funds. But I'm just trying to illustrate a point. I think PM funds are not a good investment for the average-Joe.
Re: "I'm tired of bashing the Hussman fund, HSGFX ....". Than take a look at HSTRX - down 6.4% YTD