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.
Reply to @davidrmoran: My choices were solely based on performance of late. To soon to tell on so many of the funds we discuss at MFO in this alternative to bonds category long.short or market neutral.
I have MFLDX and like VintageFreak says it needs watching after being bought by New York Life.
FMLSX has been profiled favorably by MFO if I am not mistaken. I would love to have a 10% position in my equity sleeve. 1.25 or1.27 ER after a waiver is a not bad fee in this group.
Reply to @MikeM2: Yes, but to me FMLSX behaves more like a balanced fund. It's hardly ever truly short, so I'm a little skeptical. Cannot beat the ER though.
Reply to @VintageFreak: The fact that it behaves like a balanced fund is why it is a fund to hold. Balanced funds may not be the place to be because of the bond bear market. If the stock market falls on bad times what fund would you hold? This bull stock market is in it's 5th year.
Reply to @Art: Well that's we trust active management. I guess "balanced fund" has connotation mandate is to hold (say) 60% stocks and 40% bonds. I'm as guilty as anyone relying on M* classification for a fund.
By way of example, compared to FMLSX, I prefer funds such as AUXFX, GRSPX, PROVX, which do invest in bonds since they invest anywhere, which includes keeping money in cash when either stocks or bonds or both do not meet their investment criteria.
I'm not saying FMLSX is a bad choice. I'm just saying it does not seem to be in its DNA to short. I think it goes for "value" in a bad stock market before it considers shorting/hedging. Now I'm no way to prove this other than to say I keep eyeballing this fund once in a while and I've never really seen it considerably short at any point in its lifetime, which includes last 2 50% drops. If anyone can share what's the most it has been short in absolute or relative terms to its portfolio, it would be helpful.
PS The one real miscategorization of a L/s fund is HSGFX. M* keeps classifying it as L/S when stated mandate says it is NEVER short. And these days FVALX has become L/S fund too.
Precisely my thoughts and sentiment regarding most of these long-short, alternative investment, hedged futures, mumbo-jumbo-gumbo funds that have proliferated like weeds over the past two years. Most are "distinguished" by:
1. outrageously high expense fees. 2. mediocre performance. 3. flavour-de-jour stratégies that will inevitably fail over a long cycle.
There are probably a handful of winners in this category (note: I own Marketfield myself) but, for the most part I maintain that one would certainly be better off with cautious, proven funds such as FPACX.
Reply to @scott: Not sure I understand your reply. I was merely stating funds categorized as L/S by M* not always L/S. FVALX, CGMFX, JORDX, BULLX all hedge using options. Sometimes M* says it is L/S some times it does not.
I am simply saying look at the fund to see if it is indeed L/S. Just like Bill Miller was never a "value" investor even though "value" was in the name of his fund. I'm just pointing out FMLSX managers are reluctant shorters at best. JMHO.
Comments
What are your thinking and decisionmaking about them with respect to ARLSX?
I have MFLDX and like VintageFreak says it needs watching after being bought by New York Life.
By way of example, compared to FMLSX, I prefer funds such as AUXFX, GRSPX, PROVX, which do invest in bonds since they invest anywhere, which includes keeping money in cash when either stocks or bonds or both do not meet their investment criteria.
I'm not saying FMLSX is a bad choice. I'm just saying it does not seem to be in its DNA to short. I think it goes for "value" in a bad stock market before it considers shorting/hedging. Now I'm no way to prove this other than to say I keep eyeballing this fund once in a while and I've never really seen it considerably short at any point in its lifetime, which includes last 2 50% drops. If anyone can share what's the most it has been short in absolute or relative terms to its portfolio, it would be helpful.
PS The one real miscategorization of a L/s fund is HSGFX. M* keeps classifying it as L/S when stated mandate says it is NEVER short. And these days FVALX has become L/S fund too.
Ding! DIng! DIng! We have a winner here.
Precisely my thoughts and sentiment regarding most of these long-short, alternative investment, hedged futures, mumbo-jumbo-gumbo funds that have proliferated like weeds over the past two years. Most are "distinguished" by:
1. outrageously high expense fees.
2. mediocre performance.
3. flavour-de-jour stratégies that will inevitably fail over a long cycle.
There are probably a handful of winners in this category (note: I own Marketfield myself) but, for the most part I maintain that one would certainly be better off with cautious, proven funds such as FPACX.
Caveat emptor.
I am simply saying look at the fund to see if it is indeed L/S. Just like Bill Miller was never a "value" investor even though "value" was in the name of his fund. I'm just pointing out FMLSX managers are reluctant shorters at best. JMHO.