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*: 5 More Under-The-Radar And Up-And-Coming Funds
Regarding bond funds - Vanguard funds will always merit consideration, because for bond funds the correlation between cost and performance is quite strong. Why another bond fund? Because one rarely gets an actively managed bond fund at this low a cost and this small a size.
What makes me queasy about the fund (at least going by the description) is that this sounds like what Vanguard did with its total bond index fund in 2002 (when it managed to underperform its benchmark by about 1%). See this old M* thread: http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/t/69530.aspx
Regarding the equity funds - M* star ratings provide objective summaries of past (risk adjusted) past performance. 4* and 5* performances may not indicate future results, but they do say that these funds have done well relative to their peers. HRSRX (4*), MVSGX(4*), DPIEX (5*), WCMRX (5*). Likewise, these funds' returns (not risk adjusted) over 3, 5, and 10 years are all above average (4) or high (5).
Do not underestimate M*'s ability to spin. If it weren't for all the actively managed funds, they would pretty much be out of business. Their revenue depends on advertising and subscriptions.
Do not underestimate M*'s ability to spin. If it weren't for all the actively managed funds, they would pretty much be out of business. Their revenue depends on advertising and subscriptions.
MORN is publicly traded stock. They are working in the best interest of their investors, employees and shareholders. To think they are better than any other corporation or hold themselves to a higher standard is like saying fox news is fair and balanced. Wake up people.
BobC and VF each highlight interesting questions, as there are at least two different perspectives on each of their issues.
What is the responsibility of a corporation? Corporations owe their legal existence (shielding shareholders from personal liability, etc.) to the state, and as such have traditionally been regarding as having some public obligations. Over the past 30 years or so, that perspective has shifted toward viewing corporations as answerable solely to their shareholders.
The two perspectives are not entirely incompatible, as VF suggests by mentioning an obligation to do right by their employees. Either because that's part of an implicit agreement with the state that grants corporations legal status, or because companies that treat their employees well tend to be more profitable and thus benefit their shareholders.
Either way, there is a third leg to this stool - the customers. Corporations have an obligation to do right by them as well.
Which brings us to spin - a question applicable to all media companies, not just Morningstar. There is one line of thinking (implicit in BobC's comment) that all publishers pander - so let's give up on any pretense of objectivity. You see this in some press internationally, and it was widespread in the US a century ago.
The pendulum may be swinging back that way. Not just Fox News, but CNN where the "talent" has to add disclaimers on air that they are still on outside payroll.
But that doesn't mean objectivity is a fool's errand. Some publishers build firewalls between content and advertising departments. Never 100% effective (IMHO), they nevertheless do (or at least can do) a good job in keeping the content fairly objective.
Comments
Look at the charts of those equity funds. What is remarkable about them? Every fund is up and coming for your money
What makes me queasy about the fund (at least going by the description) is that this sounds like what Vanguard did with its total bond index fund in 2002 (when it managed to underperform its benchmark by about 1%). See this old M* thread:
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/t/69530.aspx
Regarding the equity funds - M* star ratings provide objective summaries of past (risk adjusted) past performance. 4* and 5* performances may not indicate future results, but they do say that these funds have done well relative to their peers. HRSRX (4*), MVSGX(4*), DPIEX (5*), WCMRX (5*). Likewise, these funds' returns (not risk adjusted) over 3, 5, and 10 years are all above average (4) or high (5).
What is the responsibility of a corporation? Corporations owe their legal existence (shielding shareholders from personal liability, etc.) to the state, and as such have traditionally been regarding as having some public obligations. Over the past 30 years or so, that perspective has shifted toward viewing corporations as answerable solely to their shareholders.
The two perspectives are not entirely incompatible, as VF suggests by mentioning an obligation to do right by their employees. Either because that's part of an implicit agreement with the state that grants corporations legal status, or because companies that treat their employees well tend to be more profitable and thus benefit their shareholders.
Either way, there is a third leg to this stool - the customers. Corporations have an obligation to do right by them as well.
Which brings us to spin - a question applicable to all media companies, not just Morningstar. There is one line of thinking (implicit in BobC's comment) that all publishers pander - so let's give up on any pretense of objectivity. You see this in some press internationally, and it was widespread in the US a century ago.
The pendulum may be swinging back that way. Not just Fox News, but CNN where the "talent" has to add disclaimers on air that they are still on outside payroll.
But that doesn't mean objectivity is a fool's errand. Some publishers build firewalls between content and advertising departments. Never 100% effective (IMHO), they nevertheless do (or at least can do) a good job in keeping the content fairly objective.
M*'s firewall: http://discuss.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/t/251837.aspx
(I readily acknowledge that M*'s 2010 statement that it was investing in its infrastructure undermines its credibility regarding its firewall.)