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
The 'Strangest' Fund Of 2013----If By Strange We Mean 'High Returns'
Reply to @Kenster1_GlobalValue: What's so strange about Lord Abbett Micro Cap Growth Fund other than it's not available to individual investors. Its a institutional class fund requiring a $1,000,000 minimum investment. In my opinion, you post is not a good analogy. Regards, Ted
Fairholme Focused Income fund was highlighted because of its freakishly high 2013 returns and thus dubbed "Strangest" Fund by the author! In fact - it was the highest 2013 returning Fixed-Income fund whereby it's performance was freakish compared to the fixed-income category of funds.
If I then extrapolate that for a moment into crossing the bridge onto "Stock-land" - one of the highest freakish returning funds on the stock side of the world was this Lord Abbett fund - why so hard to connect the dots?
The article was about a "strange" fund by what the author meant to convey as freakishly super high returning for it's category. I merely pointed out the same thing about a freakishly high returning *stock* fund.
Secondly - yes that Lord Abbett fund has a high minimum but even if I had $1M or $10M to spare to invest in a fund, I also couldn't buy into that Fairholme fund because it's closed to new investors.
I didn't mean to imply some type of deep ANALOGY story. From the perspective of that Fairholme fixed income fund returning the highest in its category and thus 'strangely' very high because of the almost 30% returns trouncing almost every fixed-income fund --- that's the only point I'm looking at, nothing else and so I briefly mentioned a *Stock Fund* that similarly had a f*****g freakishly super high return in its category. Why read into it so much more than what it is? What other aspect of that story were you honing on whereby my analogy didn't fit?
*Scratching my head a bit here with confusion as to where the disconnect is*
I'm a bit surprised I have to explain myself? What's going on here?
Can you please then explain your interpretation of what the author was talking about in his article you linked entitled "The ‘Strangest’ Fund of 2013 — If By Strange We Mean ‘High Returns" ... because it doesn't sound like we were reading the same article or something got lost in translation.
Let me summarize one more time to make it more clear (and surprised I even have to do this)...
Fairholme Focused Income Fund had ~30% returns in 2013. The Author dubbed it as "Strange" in reference to the High Returns. In other words - freakishly high and top returns blowing away the returns of funds in the Fixed-Income category where most funds really struggled.
Oh by the way - another "Strange" fund in the *same vain* as to "High Returns" but in the Stock fund category was the Lord Abbett Microcap Growth fund where it hit 78% returns which is a freakishly whopping chart-topping performance. (Sorry, but I'm also not making any claims about how great this fund is and neither do I imply that you run out to buy this fund.)
Does that help to feel where I'm coming from?
For a minute there - I thought I was in Colorado.
===== SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Any overconfidence in your ability, willingness and need to take risk may be hazardous to your health.
Reply to @Kenster1_GlobalValue: Is MBRSX return "freakish", remember SCG Funds had a great 2013 many fund up over 40% Fairholme is strange because of it's few holdings, the Lord Abbett Fund is not. Regards, Ted
I do not read the article, but the 2013 performance of FOCIX does hit me with "Strange"! Most of its 2013 ~30% return is achieved in ~3 weeks, 5/3/2013 - 5/21/2013, with 23.76% gain.
Comments
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/lmiyx/f?t=LMIYX
Regards,
Ted
Fairholme Focused Income fund was highlighted because of its freakishly high 2013 returns and thus dubbed "Strangest" Fund by the author! In fact - it was the highest 2013 returning Fixed-Income fund whereby it's performance was freakish compared to the fixed-income category of funds.
If I then extrapolate that for a moment into crossing the bridge onto "Stock-land" - one of the highest freakish returning funds on the stock side of the world was this Lord Abbett fund - why so hard to connect the dots?
The article was about a "strange" fund by what the author meant to convey as freakishly super high returning for it's category. I merely pointed out the same thing about a freakishly high returning *stock* fund.
Secondly - yes that Lord Abbett fund has a high minimum but even if I had $1M or $10M to spare to invest in a fund, I also couldn't buy into that Fairholme fund because it's closed to new investors.
I didn't mean to imply some type of deep ANALOGY story. From the perspective of that Fairholme fixed income fund returning the highest in its category and thus 'strangely' very high because of the almost 30% returns trouncing almost every fixed-income fund --- that's the only point I'm looking at, nothing else and so I briefly mentioned a *Stock Fund* that similarly had a f*****g freakishly super high return in its category. Why read into it so much more than what it is? What other aspect of that story were you honing on whereby my analogy didn't fit?
*Scratching my head a bit here with confusion as to where the disconnect is*
I'm a bit surprised I have to explain myself? What's going on here?
Can you please then explain your interpretation of what the author was talking about in his article you linked entitled "The ‘Strangest’ Fund of 2013 — If By Strange We Mean ‘High Returns" ... because it doesn't sound like we were reading the same article or something got lost in translation.
Let me summarize one more time to make it more clear (and surprised I even have to do this)...
Fairholme Focused Income Fund had ~30% returns in 2013. The Author dubbed it as "Strange" in reference to the High Returns. In other words - freakishly high and top returns blowing away the returns of funds in the Fixed-Income category where most funds really struggled.
Oh by the way - another "Strange" fund in the *same vain* as to "High Returns" but in the Stock fund category was the Lord Abbett Microcap Growth fund where it hit 78% returns which is a freakishly whopping chart-topping performance. (Sorry, but I'm also not making any claims about how great this fund is and neither do I imply that you run out to buy this fund.)
Does that help to feel where I'm coming from?
For a minute there - I thought I was in Colorado.
=====
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Any overconfidence in your ability, willingness and need to take risk may be hazardous to your health.
Regards,
Ted