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
M* Potential Allocation Manager Of The Year Winners
What a joy to read the article as Old_Skeet owns four of the funds mentioned ... FKINX, TIBAX, ABALX & AMECX and held within portfolio.
And, in reading the comments that follow the article I see where our TED of MFO has picked ... PRWCX ... as the winner. Well, at least I had four funds in the chase.
Once again, M* ignores Bruce BRUFX - they meet all M*'s criteria handily except having been rated by M*. Sounds like catch 22 to me. But then M* has never liked BRUFX- maybe b/c they don't pay to advertise M*'s ratings.
Here is another fine fund, which I own, that has made a good showing and carries a Morningstar five star rating that did not make the finals in the big chase; and, it is HWIAX. I have linked it's M* report below for those that might be interested. Seems it too has bettered the others that I own which did made the cut.
Interesting that M* admits that the Manager of the Year award actually is not based on the current year. Why not call it fund of the decade that happens to have the same management for 7 years and has at least $10 billion is assets? If the award is for management, and if the name is Manager of the Year, what's with all the extraneous screens? And the required analyst rating insures only 20-30% of funds get admitted to the exclusive group. No funds under $3 billion need apply.
Many of these are not what I would call allocation funds, where management has the ability to determine the mix of stocks and bonds. Wellington and Wellesley for sure have mandates they cannot change. Both American funds have held the same allocation for years and years. They, too, are restricted by prospectus. Price Capital Appreciation has great management, but it, too, has had an almost unchanged allocation for a long time. Puritan has had the same mix, within a percentage point or two, for ages. Franklin Income has actually changed allocation a bit over the last five years, up to almost 10% less in bonds. Thornburg is by far the most adventurous, but still not much.
Given M*s rather glib interpretation of "allocation" (it seems to encompass balanced, all three allocation categories (conservative, moderate, aggressive), tactical, and world allocation) there are sure to be some great managers who are overlooked. FPACX, OAKBX, GLRBX, CAPSX to name a very few. I am surprised to see Thornburg on this list, but not disappointed.
Comments
What a joy to read the article as Old_Skeet owns four of the funds mentioned ... FKINX, TIBAX, ABALX & AMECX and held within portfolio.
And, in reading the comments that follow the article I see where our TED of MFO has picked ... PRWCX ... as the winner. Well, at least I had four funds in the chase.
Old_Skeet
So disheartening to see M* continuing to tout front loaded funds.
Half of these carry max front loads of up to 5.75%.
Here is another fine fund, which I own, that has made a good showing and carries a Morningstar five star rating that did not make the finals in the big chase; and, it is HWIAX. I have linked it's M* report below for those that might be interested. Seems it too has bettered the others that I own which did made the cut.
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=HWIAX®ion=USA
I wish all ... Good Investing."
Old_Skeet
Hard to see anyone but Gotham walking away with current award.
Many of these are not what I would call allocation funds, where management has the ability to determine the mix of stocks and bonds. Wellington and Wellesley for sure have mandates they cannot change. Both American funds have held the same allocation for years and years. They, too, are restricted by prospectus. Price Capital Appreciation has great management, but it, too, has had an almost unchanged allocation for a long time. Puritan has had the same mix, within a percentage point or two, for ages. Franklin Income has actually changed allocation a bit over the last five years, up to almost 10% less in bonds. Thornburg is by far the most adventurous, but still not much.
Given M*s rather glib interpretation of "allocation" (it seems to encompass balanced, all three allocation categories (conservative, moderate, aggressive), tactical, and world allocation) there are sure to be some great managers who are overlooked. FPACX, OAKBX, GLRBX, CAPSX to name a very few. I am surprised to see Thornburg on this list, but not disappointed.