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.
I click on SOME of my holdings in M* Portfolio Manager, and it's just a jumbled mess. One--- SFGIX---refuses to be recognized at all. MSCFX gets clicked by Yours Truly, and PCHFX comes up, instead. MAINX comes up as VKIGNX, instead. The others seem OK. http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/p/338502/3543673.aspx#3543673
It is the very reason why I did not renew my yearly subscription effective the end of May. And when I was asked why by the Morningstar representative, she expressed surprise when I mentioned the troubled IT department. In my opinion, on average the Morningstar site is one of the least stable internet platforms that I have seen.
Crash: There was a time that I felt that Morningstar's data was indispensable, but over time it is my opinion that their fund insight and the accuracy of their data has diminished. These days, I get far better portfolio analysis using the tools at Fidelity...and better product insight from David and the discussion contributors at the Mutual Fund Observer. Their websites work better too.
Giggle. I concur, folks. It's just so convenient--- the M* Portf. Tracker--- compared to other sites. Can I get info. from Fidelity even though I'm not a customer?
Morningstar's opinion of a mutual fund is not expressed in the number of stars it has. It is expressed in the rating of the fund, such as Gold, Silver, Bronze, Neutral or Negative.
Per Morningstar: "Pure math. A fund's star rating is based solely on a formula that Morningstar recalculates each month--there is no subjective input. The loss of a star doesn't mean someone at Morningstar has downgraded the fund--it simply means the fund's relative performance is currently below the cutoff point for its previous rating. Nothing more, nothing less. Time to panic? Nope. You didn't buy the fund just because of its star rating (we hope) and you shouldn't sell solely because of its rating, either. There are several reasons for changes in a fund's rating that have little to do with its management and absolute performance: Because the star rating groups are very broad, a fund may lose a star even though it is performing well in comparison with similar funds. For example, technology sector funds will receive high ratings when tech is hot, but will see their ratings drop if the sector falters. Take a look at how your fund is doing relative to other funds that share its investment style before doing anything rash............"
Thanks rbj112: You wrote: "Morningstar's opinion of a mutual fund is not expressed in the number of stars it has." ---
Wonder how many investors realize that those stars do not reflect M*'s opinion of a fund? I didn't. Along with my own ignorance, we could include some pretty big fund families, like T. Rowe Price, who tout their many 4 & 5 star funds to potential investors.
Hmm ... from what you cite above, it seems perhaps "Morning Metals" would be a more appropriate name for the organization? I'd also recommend "Clunker." ... "Mourning Stars" would work too. (However, that last one's probably not very original:-)
Their gibberish is reminiscent of Orwell's: "War is peace." Anyways, nice to learn that my fund is sitting firmly on their designated "Neutral" ground. However - not sure whether this new knowledge ought to make me feel better or worse. Need to think more deeply on this one. Maybe another cold one will help.
Here's some more information on the Analyst Medal Ratings, their opinions on funds. It's taken from a pdf document titled:
Morningstar Analyst Rating for Funds Methodology Document
I'm going to hack up the document, which is pretty long, and provide some excerpts:
"Analyst Rating Spectrum: Morningstar’s Analyst Ratings are qualitative, forward-looking visual representations of the analyst team's view of a fund’s potential to succeed"
"………Morningstar fund analysis has always had a focus on helping the user make better investment decisions......................Identify those funds which we believe should be able to outperform a relevant benchmark and/or peer group, within the context of the level of risk taken, over the longer term......................... Morningstar’s goal is to ensure that investors and fund selectors have access to its qualitative analysts’ opinions on a broad spectrum of funds................ The Morningstar Analyst RatingTM for Funds The Morningstar Analyst RatingTM for funds is the summary expression of our forward-looking analysis of a fund. Morningstar Analyst Ratings are assigned globally on a five-tier scale running from Gold to Negative. The top three ratings, Gold, Silver, and Bronze, all indicate that our analysts think highly of a fund.......... The Analyst Rating does not express a view on a given asset class................
Gold: These funds are our highest-conviction recommendations and stand out as best of breed for their investment mandate. By giving a fund a Gold rating, we are expressing an expectation that it will outperform its relevant performance benchmark and/or peer group within the context of the level of risk taken over the long term (defined as a full market cycle or at least five years)........... To earn a Gold rating, a fund must distinguish itself across the five pillars that are the basis for our analysis. That is, a Gold-rated fund should have a seasoned, talented, and successful manager or management team; a sound, thoughtful process that has been executed skillfully and consistently; a portfolio that’s in harmony with the stated process and that’s capable of delivering a reward that compensates investors for the risks it takes; reasonable expenses; and a strong parent organization that is focused on responsible stewardship of investor assets............
[I'll skip the Silver, Bronze and Neutral so the post isn't too long]
Negative: These funds possess at least one flaw that we believe is likely to significantly hamper future performance, such as high fees or an unstable management team. Because of these faults, we believe these funds are inferior to most competitors and will likely underperform their relevant performance benchmark and/or peer group, within the context of the level of risk taken, over a full market cycle. For example, a fund that combines an overly benchmark-conscious strategy with high fees could receive this rating because its strategy lends itself to underperformance............."
Comments
Regards,
Ted
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/p/338502/3543673.aspx#3543673
I also use M* Portfolio Manager and it is working ok for me when I click on a fund position within my portfolio to get its M* report.
Old_Skeet
Per Morningstar:
"Pure math. A fund's star rating is based solely on a formula that Morningstar recalculates each month--there is no subjective input. The loss of a star doesn't mean someone at Morningstar has downgraded the fund--it simply means the fund's relative performance is currently below the cutoff point for its previous rating. Nothing more, nothing less.
Time to panic? Nope. You didn't buy the fund just because of its star rating (we hope) and you shouldn't sell solely because of its rating, either. There are several reasons for changes in a fund's rating that have little to do with its management and absolute performance: Because the star rating groups are very broad, a fund may lose a star even though it is performing well in comparison with similar funds. For example, technology sector funds will receive high ratings when tech is hot, but will see their ratings drop if the sector falters. Take a look at how your fund is doing relative to other funds that share its investment style before doing anything rash............"
Taken from:
http://www.morningstar.com/Help/FAQ.html#LoseStar
Why did my fund lose a star?
---
Wonder how many investors realize that those stars do not reflect M*'s opinion of a fund? I didn't. Along with my own ignorance, we could include some pretty big fund families, like T. Rowe Price, who tout their many 4 & 5 star funds to potential investors.
Hmm ... from what you cite above, it seems perhaps "Morning Metals" would be a more appropriate name for the organization? I'd also recommend "Clunker." ... "Mourning Stars" would work too. (However, that last one's probably not very original:-)
Their gibberish is reminiscent of Orwell's: "War is peace." Anyways, nice to learn that my fund is sitting firmly on their designated "Neutral" ground. However - not sure whether this new knowledge ought to make me feel better or worse. Need to think more deeply on this one. Maybe another cold one will help.
Regards.
Here's some more information on the Analyst Medal Ratings, their opinions on funds.
It's taken from a pdf document titled:
Morningstar Analyst Rating for Funds
Methodology Document
I'm going to hack up the document, which is pretty long, and provide some excerpts:
"Analyst Rating Spectrum: Morningstar’s Analyst Ratings are qualitative, forward-looking visual representations of the analyst team's view of a fund’s potential to succeed"
"………Morningstar fund analysis has always had a focus on helping the user make better investment decisions......................Identify those funds which we believe should be able to outperform a relevant benchmark and/or peer group, within the context of the level of risk taken, over the longer term.........................
Morningstar’s goal is to ensure that investors and fund selectors have access to its qualitative analysts’ opinions on a broad spectrum of funds................
The Morningstar Analyst RatingTM for Funds
The Morningstar Analyst RatingTM for funds is the summary expression of our forward-looking analysis of a fund. Morningstar Analyst Ratings are assigned globally on a five-tier scale running from Gold to Negative. The top three ratings, Gold, Silver, and Bronze, all indicate that our analysts think highly of a fund..........
The Analyst Rating does not express a view on a given asset class................
Gold: These funds are our highest-conviction recommendations and stand out as best of breed for their investment mandate. By giving a fund a Gold rating, we are expressing an expectation that it will outperform its relevant performance benchmark and/or peer group within the context of the level of risk taken over the long term (defined as a full market cycle or at least five years)...........
To earn a Gold rating, a fund must distinguish itself across the five pillars that are the basis for our analysis. That is, a Gold-rated fund should have a seasoned, talented, and successful manager or management team; a sound, thoughtful process that has been executed skillfully and consistently; a portfolio that’s in harmony with the stated process and that’s capable of delivering a reward that compensates investors for the risks it takes; reasonable expenses; and a strong parent organization that is focused on responsible stewardship of investor assets............
[I'll skip the Silver, Bronze and Neutral so the post isn't too long]
Negative: These funds possess at least one flaw that we believe is likely to significantly hamper future performance, such as high fees or an unstable management team. Because of these faults, we believe these funds are inferior to most competitors and will likely underperform their relevant performance benchmark and/or peer group, within the context of the level of risk taken, over a full market cycle. For example, a fund that combines an overly benchmark-conscious strategy with high fees could receive this rating because its strategy lends itself to underperformance............."