WSJ Quarterly Mutual Fund Report

bilvihur

I got in the habit of using the WSJ Quarterly Mutual Fund Report (first paper, now online) to track where my funds stack up against others. I know the problem of using past performance to predict the future, and that funds are categorized differently depending on who's doing the tracking, but that's a different discussion. Anyway, the Oct. 4 online report online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3053-quarterly_A-quarterly.html leaves out funds beginning with B thru E. I sent them an email pointing out the problem, and also asked why the Janus Triton Fund (JANIX) is not tracked although it's existed for 8 years. I got back this reply: "Only funds that are classified as NASDAQ Primary/News Media are included in our list. The fund you are inquiring about is classified as a NASDAQ Supplemental. As is does not meet certain criteria, it is not listed on the News Media List." It's a $6 billion fund! I''ve never heard of the Primary/Supplemental classification, and Lipper, Morningstar, etc. don't treat it differently. Does anyone have any answers?

slick

Bilvihur,

Thanks so much for posting this link, I was able to find all of my funds except Artisan funds. If you click on "A" and "F", scroll down far enough you will find the "missing" fund families B - E. It sure IS nice to see how my funds are doing compared to their peers.

BobC

Like other 'ranking' and 'comparison' studies, the WSJ report is full of strange listings. The problem lies in what category (investment objective) they put a fund. These are limited and just a quick glance caused me to shudder. So I caution folks to be sure the 'peer' comparison is valid before making any conclusions.

bilvihur

BobC: What tracking site gives the most accurate "apples-to-apples" comparison?

BobC

Reply to @bilvihur: As my post indicated, there are problems with all of these comparison ranking sites when it comes to funds that do not fit the standard asset classes. This could be multi-cap funds, global allocation funds, numerous kinds of alternative strategy funds, dynamic allocation funds, etc. The best comparison for these is to really know what the fund is - how it is managed, what it might invest in, what corresponding benchmark the manager uses to track performance - and go from there. Do not accept M* classifications at face value, since they can change sometimes frequently, and may often not reflect how the fund is actually managed today, which means the comparison category returns are not accurate. If you look for great managers first, and not style box or categories of funds, that would be good. But I realize this is often not easy for most retail investors. As much as I dislike M* asset classes, they are much better than Lipper and others that have very limited numbers. Just be aware that you need to dig into how a fund is currently being managed to make fair comparisons.

hank

Just to reiterate something BobC mentioned. At the end of 2012 there were over 7,000 open-end funds available to U.S. investors. (Not sure if this includes all the various share classes. But, either way, it's a lot of funds). I have trouble then understanding how these can all be somehow neatly "slipped" into a dozen or even two dozen different classifications. (Talk about square pegs in round holes.) It seems to me almost futile to try - but that won't keep the rating organizations from doing it.

I've seen funds (for example, HSTRX) that one rating agency will categorize as "Growth" while another will label as "Conservative Allocation". Still others will call it "Aggressive Bond", "Strategic Income", "Mixed Asset", or some other danged thing. Seems to me that a decade ago some were even calling HSTRX a government bond fund because it sometimes has 65-75% in short-term Treasuries. Now, if it were just a matter of being "cute" it wouldn't matter. But, the classifications assigned dramatically affect how a fund is ranked. Change the classification and a fund can go from dog to star overnight - or just as easily fall from top dog to the bottom of the heap.

Investor

It is a carry over from paper edition. Since space is/was limited they are really only tracking large funds. All performance data you need to track your mutual funds is available trough Morningstar, Lipper and Yahoo etc. You do not need quarterly issue for fund performance etc.

msf

There are two lists - the News Media List containing funds that papers may include in their listings, and the Supplemental list containing funds that are for electronic publication only. I believe the WSJ was incorrect in stating that Triton is not in the News Media List. Rather, as Investor suggested, papers start with the News Media list, and then further sift the funds to exclude the smaller ones from that list.

Here is a good, brief synopsis of what the NASDAQ OMX Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS) News Media List criteria are, and what the (lesser) requirements are for a fund to be included in the MFQS Supplemental List:
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/content/administrationsupport/agreementsdata/mfqslistingstandards.pdf

If you want to know more about MFQS, here's their FAQ:
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/content/administrationsupport/mfqs_faqs.pdf

On p. 4 you'll find the same criteria as in the summary I cited, and on p. 5 is the explanation of the difference between the two lists:

"MFQS Supplemental List instruments are covered by electronic media only. MFQS News Media List instruments may be covered by print media as well as electronic media.

"Please note that NASDAQ OMX cannot guarantee that News Media List mutual funds and money market funds will appear in all U.S. newspapers. Newspaper editors reserve the right to limit the number of mutual funds and money market funds displayed in stock tables based on their business needs."

I know that Triton is on the primary (News Media) list, because it appears in the NYTimes Mutual Fund third quarter report (p. 35). That it doesn't appear in the WSJ thus is a result of the WSJ business decision, and you have not been given a correct response.

Years ago, when the NYTimes still printed fund prices daily, they did print the full list (funds with assets over $25M). They gradually cut back, printing the full list on Sundays, and only larger funds on weekdays. (They subsequently cut out the daily listings.)

bilvihur

My thanks to msf for explaining the Primary/Supplemental meaning. I had a hunch the WSJ folks weren't being candid. Also thanks to BobC and hank for pointing out the pitfalls of accepting any particular organization's fund classification and ranking scheme. I guess I'm going to have to do more homework. I don't suppose there's a ranking of best performing fund managers?