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.
Ha, very good --- nothing like recency bias and going from 6y to 5y charting, and having the 5y turn golden in appearance.
No wonder articles like this one appear.
It's doing well since Nov 08. Not so much for the spring and summer of 08. For instructive fun with graph periods, just compare DODGX with GABEX, PRBLX, YACKX, FCNTX, and FLPSX, for 10y, 6/5/3/2/1.
Reply to @Ted: Who said otherwise? It looks great, but greater than it arguably is, because it's just escaped that bad window period. Do the math, check the graphs, rather than attempting to contradict something illusory. You of all analytic types here would snort at a valentine article about 'sticking with something pays off' without sufficiently noting sample periods, reversion to mean, risk-adjusted returns in detail for tough times, overall risk compared with peers, and the like. Patience required, as M* puts it. Some would ask about its ulcer index compared with YAFFX, say.
Reply to @Ted: Jeez, touchy. Who's preaching to you? (And did someone appoint you unanswerable or uncommentable because of your helpful aggregation labors here?)
>> Your data mining with other funds will not work with me.
Spoken like a true investigator.
>> ... 15 years ago your returns would have beaten the S&P 500.
Surprising that you would mention something so easily checked for comparison. D&C did just fine over that period, and who ever said or thought otherwise? Its performance falls well below three of those I mentioned, and slightly better than two. Excellent peers and an excellent group, in other words. With less risk and fewer bumps? Nah.
So read the link, as you say, another surprising recommendation given your defensiveness about D&C excellence --- here it is for those who do not pay M*; talk about damning with faint praise:
Note how the points are made and what the points are. It is not just the 08 miscalc. There is a reason that such an article gets written with this tone, about the absolute necessity for perseverance. Did people bail more than with some of the ones I mentioned? I would imagine so. Isn't this what ulcer index analysis is all about? D&C have not always made it easy to hang in. Am I allowed to point that out?
Reply to @davidrmoran: In my opinion, if you find a good fund, as I did for 28 years with Magellan you stick with it. DODGX both short & long-term has well rewarded its shareholders. Remember investing is a marathon, not a sprint. Regards, Ted
I think we pay too much attention to the Fund and not enough to the Company. To me: Company = culture and fees. Dodge and Cox ranks near the top In both categories - IMHO
However, even the best occasionally fumble or strike out.
Regarding fumbling or striking out, I prefer to use at least three different houses for diversification. Figure at least one or two of them will get it right at any particular point in time
Hey there OJ --- Next time there's a heated discussion, I wanta be alerted IN TIME (so can help cool things down:-) Regards
Comments
No wonder articles like this one appear.
It's doing well since Nov 08. Not so much for the spring and summer of 08. For instructive fun with graph periods, just compare DODGX with GABEX, PRBLX, YACKX, FCNTX, and FLPSX, for 10y, 6/5/3/2/1.
Regards,
Ted
Regards,
Ted
http://www.morningstar.com/advisor/t/80675833/choosing-a-dodge-cox-fund-is-just-the-start.htm?&single=true#axzz2l8OLyPKr
Jeez, touchy. Who's preaching to you? (And did someone appoint you unanswerable or uncommentable because of your helpful aggregation labors here?)
>> Your data mining with other funds will not work with me.
Spoken like a true investigator.
>> ... 15 years ago your returns would have beaten the S&P 500.
Surprising that you would mention something so easily checked for comparison. D&C did just fine over that period, and who ever said or thought otherwise? Its performance falls well below three of those I mentioned, and slightly better than two. Excellent peers and an excellent group, in other words. With less risk and fewer bumps? Nah.
So read the link, as you say, another surprising recommendation given your defensiveness about D&C excellence --- here it is for those who do not pay M*; talk about damning with faint praise:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/choosing-dodge-cox-fund-just-110000706.html
Note how the points are made and what the points are. It is not just the 08 miscalc. There is a reason that such an article gets written with this tone, about the absolute necessity for perseverance. Did people bail more than with some of the ones I mentioned? I would imagine so. Isn't this what ulcer index analysis is all about? D&C have not always made it easy to hang in. Am I allowed to point that out?
Regards,
Ted
However, even the best occasionally fumble or strike out.
Regarding fumbling or striking out, I prefer to use at least three different houses for diversification. Figure at least one or two of them will get it right at any particular point in time
Hey there OJ --- Next time there's a heated discussion, I wanta be alerted IN TIME (so can help cool things down:-) Regards