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.
Limiting his screen to funds that have M* analyst ratings of bronze or higher eliminates many great funds that do not have an analyst rating and which have better records than the funds that made his list. For this reason alone, I did not bother to read the full article.
I noticed a real heavy slant towards the big fund companies, such as Fidelity, Vanguard and American Funds. I wonder how much advertising they do with *M.
I like his argument, in the follow-on article, for why Fidelity Capital Appreciation (FDCAX) is no longer a Fanny Fifty Fund: it has been doing too well. There's an incentive fee built into the fund's price structure; if performance sucks, the e.r. drops. If performance soars, the e.r. rises.
Here's the reason for dropping the fund: " In 2013, the fund outpaced that index by 2.47 percentage points, upping the expense ratio by 4 basis points to 0.81%. This increase moved the fund's expenses beyond the category's cheapest quintile..."
Comments
Here's the reason for dropping the fund: " In 2013, the fund outpaced that index by 2.47 percentage points, upping the expense ratio by 4 basis points to 0.81%. This increase moved the fund's expenses beyond the category's cheapest quintile..."
David