Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

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.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Morningstar Devolution

Morningstar eliminated at least 2 very nice features in its new improved iteration.

1. The ability to compare results between 2 or more funds, year by year and over various time periods.

2. The ability to see the daily performance of stocks within a mutual fund's portfolio.

I did have a link to the old pages where I could still access these features, but it recently stopped working.

These were nice features - why did they ditch them? Am I missing something?
«1

Comments

  • These are features of legacy pages from two iterations ago. M* hid them many months ago, though it has only recently completely disabled them.

    In its current iteration (at morningstar.com) one can still compare fund performance by using interactive graphs and selecting the desired time period. In the newest iteration (at investor.morningstar.com) you can find the interactive chart by looking for the "charting" icon down the left hand side (thanks to Yogi for finding this).

    These issues have been extensively discussed in this thread:
    https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/59701/m-screwing-everything-up-again/p1

    They are also the subject of an August commentary
    https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2022/08/new-coke-the-ford-edsel-cheetos-lip-balm-and-morningstar-investor/

    As annoying as removal of convenience features are, so long as one has access to the data, one can at least in theory make do. (Though pragmatically it may not be worth one's time and effort.) OTOH, it is impossible to compensate for data that is completely eliminated, such as brokerage availability.

  • TYVM for the info.

    Checking to see how a portfolio is doing on an intra-day basis is arguably a pointless activity that one should not be engaging in anyway. But it can be somewhat amusing -- for a certain kind of person.
  • edited August 2022
    dryflower said:

    TYVM for the info.

    Checking to see how a portfolio is doing on an intra-day basis is arguably a pointless activity that one should not be engaging in anyway. But it can be somewhat amusing -- for a certain kind of person.


    Agree.:)

    70% or more here is in mutual funds that only report after the markets close. But enjoy looking sometimes at how the ETFs and stocks are faring. Often, it’s a good indicator of how the day will go. If one has an IOS device, “Active Portfolio / Premium” ($35 a year) is excellent for that kind of real time tracking - though it falls short in other areas.
  • Also irritating is that along with all the reduced functionality, they are cheerleading for the importance of "sustainability", providing lots of unwanted data about it, and hoping so hard that it will prove to be a factor that increases returns.
  • Follow the money. M* needs to show these metrics have value:
    CHICAGO and AMSTERDAM, April 21, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Morningstar, Inc. (Nasdaq: MORN), a leading provider of independent investment research, today announced it has reached an agreement to acquire Sustainalytics, a globally recognized leader in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings and research. Morningstar currently owns an approximate 40% ownership stake in Sustainalytics, first acquired in 2017, and will purchase the remaining approximate 60% of Sustainalytics shares upon closing of the transaction.
    https://newsroom.morningstar.com/newsroom/news-archive/press-release-details/2020/Morningstar-to-Acquire-Sustainalytics-and-Expand-Access-to-ESG-Research-Data-and-Analytics-for-Investors-Worldwide/default.aspx
  • "Value" has a couple of meanings here. There's monetary value, of course, as in improved relative performance, but there's "moral" value as well (for lack of a better term), in which context that sustainability data may not be unwanted at all.
  • Understood. But the assumption they make is that all people of good will can agree on certain values:

    Fossil fuels are bad.

    Gun manufacturing is immoral.

    Making alcoholic beverages is morally wrong.

    Diversity is a virtue, and lack thereof is undesirable.

    Homosexual relationships are to be celebrated.

    The fact is that all people of good will do not agree on these things.
  • Specifically in regard to fossil fuels, there is no one in this country who doesn't use and benefit from petroleum based products on a daily basis, so to draw the line at ownership of the company is rather ridiculous.

    Exxon doesn't care who its owners are. If you want to stop the existence of Exxon, try to stop consuming its evil products.
  • Making alcoholic beverages is morally wrong

    Certainly some ratings penalize (or exclude) the manufacture of alcoholic beverages for moral reasons. However, M*'s Sustainalytics concerns are not moral but (surprise) sustainability:
    Based on assessments from Sustainalytics ... the biggest environmental, social, or governance risk for alcohol stems from water use. ... water isn’t just an ingredient. It’s critical to production, including cleaning, cooling, and packaging. And water is even more important given its direct impact on product quality and experience, as well as the growing of ingredients like barley, corn, and other crops.
    https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1092686/hate-the-sin-love-the-stock-investors-esg-exclusions-leave-opportunities

    With respect to mutual funds, I do consider diversity a virtue, but some investors like lack thereof, i.e. concentration.
  • Exxon doesn't care who its owners are.

    That's a pretty good definition of poor governance - ignoring your shareholders. Ultimately that comes with consequences.
    A year ago this month [May], a small hedge fund won an unlikely victory against ExxonMobil, gaining support from a majority of the company’s shareholders to replace three of its directors, against management’s wishes. The fund, called Engine No. 1, had argued that Exxon was failing to plan for a transition away from fossil fuels, and as a result was jeopardizing its long-term business prospects.

    While Engine No. 1 held only a tiny number of shares, it waged a six-month campaign and convinced large investors like BlackRock and State Street that Exxon needed fresh faces on its board of directors. Even before the vote, Exxon responded to the pressure by announcing a new low-carbon business line and more ambitious plans to reduce its own direct greenhouse gas emissions.
    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/17052022/charlie-penner-engine-no-1-exxonmobil/

    That sounds like Exxon cared who its owners were - it opposed replacing board members and it responded to pressure by owners.

    https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/07/23/eesg-activism-after-exxonmobil/
  • I was assuming passive shareholders. My point being that one set of passive owners compared to another has no effect on a business; whereas a lack of customers certainly does.
  • msf said:

    Making alcoholic beverages is morally wrong

    Certainly some ratings penalize (or exclude) the manufacture of alcoholic beverages for moral reasons. However, M*'s Sustainalytics concerns are not moral but (surprise) sustainability:

    Based on assessments from Sustainalytics ... the biggest environmental, social, or governance risk for alcohol stems from water use. ... water isn’t just an ingredient. It’s critical to production, including cleaning, cooling, and packaging. And water is even more important given its direct impact on product quality and experience, as well as the growing of ingredients like barley, corn, and other crops.
    https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1092686/hate-the-sin-love-the-stock-investors-esg-exclusions-leave-opportunities

    With respect to mutual funds, I do consider diversity a virtue, but some investors like lack thereof, i.e. concentration.
    Water is like that for more than alcohol production. Which is why I recently took a flyer on water ETF's. At worst I figure they will be little better than a utility type fund. OTOH . . .
  • Don't get me started with morningstar. They change up things on their website all the time. Plus, their supposed experts who review mutual fund companies, is flat out horrible and biased (why would they want to upset the very companies that make up their industry?). I don't even read them anymore, i have to meet them face to face still as part of my diligence.
  • +1. understood!
  • @WABAC: I agree with you on water. I have a decent amount in FIW, and I have stuck with it despite drops since late 2021. The fund holds companies whose business extends beyond water per se, but I think they are solid industrial companies. Lots of good companies’ stocks have been gored for no good reason other than a bad market environment. I’m hoping that quality will rise to the surface and receive investors’ (i.e., stock pickers’) attention. I also have a position in GFLOX which holds water-related businesses.
  • Water? Drops? Rise to the surface?
    I get it.
  • Don't get me started with morningstar. They change up things on their website all the time. Plus, their supposed experts who review mutual fund companies, is flat out horrible and biased (why would they want to upset the very companies that make up their industry?). I don't even read them anymore, i have to meet them face to face still as part of my diligence.

    I think if they have something negative to say, they try to say it diplomatically. I may be in the minority, but I think their overviews of individual funds are pretty good.




  • With respect to mutual funds, I do consider diversity a virtue, but some investors like lack thereof, i.e. concentration.

    Diversification in investments is certainly a virtue. (The only free lunch on Wall Street).

    I was talking about conscious, forced, artificial "diversity" in the work force.


  • edited August 2022
    BenWP said:

    I also have a position in GFLOX which holds water-related businesses.

    Try GLFOX @BenWP :)
  • Thanks, @hank. My copy editor is off on vacation.
  • BenWP said:

    @WABAC: I agree with you on water. I have a decent amount in FIW, and I have stuck with it despite drops since late 2021. The fund holds companies whose business extends beyond water per se, but I think they are solid industrial companies. Lots of good companies’ stocks have been gored for no good reason other than a bad market environment. I’m hoping that quality will rise to the surface and receive investors’ (i.e., stock pickers’) attention. I also have a position in GFLOX which holds water-related businesses.

    GLFOX? Love the dividends.

    Our Water Works basket include PIO, FIW, and CGW.

  • The charting feature now seems to have been restored to its former functionality: it's possible to set custom dates, compare funds / ETFs / stocks.
  • edited August 2022
    sfnative said:

    The charting feature now seems to have been restored to its former functionality: it's possible to set custom dates, compare funds / ETFs / stocks.

    I haven't checked this yet, but I'm shocked that M* actually restored chart functionality.
    Historically, M* has seemingly decided not to resolve known/reported issues.
  • Yes, quite right.
  • That is a good business practice for them to see their error and revert. Thanks, M*.
  • edited August 2022
    There was a post at M* Discussions (long thread, post# 326, warning - needs lot of scrolling) yesterday that offered a ray of hope. https://community.morningstar.com/s/question/0D53o000066YnacCAC/does-anyone-else-feel-like-the-new-morningstar-investor-is-a-huge-downgrade-compared-with-the-legacy-portfolio-manager

    "Bill.Baranyk (Employee)
    21 hours ago

    Hello Investor subscriber,

    We're continuing to receive feedback from subscribers on the Investor experience, with an emphasis on the status of missing or incomplete features.

    We take feedback seriously and want to show how we’re using it to improve Investor. So, we’d like to lay out what you can expect over the next six to nine months.

    The status of legacy Portfolio Manager

    Legacy Portfolio Manager will not be retired until the features in Investor's Portfolio help you accomplish the same tasks as legacy: monitoring your portfolio with relevant data in customizable views, understanding investment performance, and reviewing Portfolio X-Ray analysis on your holdings. Our goal is to add features to Portfolio that support those tasks by the end of 2022.

    As we continue to build and release, you’ll see similar features to those in legacy, but you’ll also see new additions that improve how you research, analyze, and monitor investments.

    But rest assured: Legacy will not be retired until all those features are successfully up and running in Investor. We’ll communicate our progress along the way, and if we aren’t on track to hit our goal, legacy will remain until we are.

    Custom views

    Custom views are coming to Investor, and they’ll be similar to the My Views feature in legacy Portfolio. The launch of views will come in phases, with the first phase rolling out in early September 2022. This launch will include an improved process for creating, editing, and sorting custom views and around 80 additional data points to work with.

    The remaining phases will roll out throughout the rest of the year and will include expanded data points and more ways to control how you view information within tables. [We’re also determining the best way to bring over custom views you’ve already created in legacy Portfolio Manager.]

    We’ll notify you as each phase launches.

    Performance tracking

    In the fall, we’ll add performance tracking to Investor for portfolios that have manually added purchases/sales. This includes both data and comparisons to similar benchmarks. Watchlists in Investor will not include functionality for performance tracking.

    Investor will continue to evolve with the needs of our subscribers, so we’ll keep you informed as updates come. This approach may be a bit different than what you’ve experienced with Premium. It’s all in service of getting the right features into your hands, so you can focus on your investment goals.

    We can’t wait for you to see what’s in store over the coming weeks and months.

    Happy investing,
    The Morningstar Investor team"
  • "But rest assured: Legacy will not be retired until all those features are successfully up and running in Investor. We’ll communicate our progress along the way, and if we aren’t on track to hit our goal, legacy will remain until we are."

    I haven't previously paid for a M* subscription nor do I intend to subscribe to Investor.
    However, this is a very positive development in my opinion.
  • Thanks. Yogi.
Sign In or Register to comment.