| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 50.1 | | SUBSYS::GANESH | Ganesh | Tue Feb 11 1992 00:31 | 4 |
| replied to .0 by mail.. this should be a nice opportunity
to check if that "Businessweek cover" indicator really works ;-)
- Ganesh.
|
| 50.2 | Yield is | SICVAX::SWEENEY | Panic? Only in emergencies | Tue Feb 11 1992 00:46 | 3 |
| Total return in the sum of capital gains (or losses) and dividends.
Yield is the amount paid in dividends/divided by the amount invested
(at the market price).
|
| 50.3 | BW's statistics poor? | MR4DEC::BMCWILLIAMS | Improvise if you have to ... | Tue Feb 11 1992 13:17 | 21 |
| Regarding Business Week's mutual fund surveys, I find a puzzling
disparity between the ratings from last year and this year. For
example, BW gives the "three up arrows" award to funds with superior
"risk adjusted performance for the last five years." In 1991, 34 funds
won that accolade; in 1992, 41 got 3 up arrows, and I'll bet that no
more than half the funds in the 1991 list appear on the new list.
As a specific example, the T. Rowe Price International Stock fund
received 3 up arrows in last year's rating. This year, it's got a one
*down* arrow rating! This change comes, I presume, from the fund's
ho-hum 15.9% return in 1991.
Anyone else notice this volatility in the BW ratings?
Do Money magazine's ratings fluctuate so much from year to year?
Kind of reminds me of Consumer Reports' auto ratings, in which the
Dodge Omni was rated a top buy in 1981 or so, but a few years later CU
strongly advised buyers to avoid it ...
Brian
|
| 50.4 | Other popular magazines that rate | SDSVAX::SWEENEY | Patrick Sweeney in New York | Wed Feb 12 1992 02:44 | 6 |
| Consumer Reports itself, one year rated mutual funds.
Money does as you mentions.
Others: Forbes, Barrons
I believe that Forbes does the best job.
|
| 50.5 | | CHESS::KAIKOW | | Thu Feb 13 1992 09:03 | 11 |
| I also noticed an inexplicable omission of some funds that were listed last
year, even tho they state trhat they increased the number of funds covered this
year.
"Inconsistency" in ratings is in the eyes of the beholder. Remember, most of
these ratings are automatically churned out by some computer, based on someone's
underlying assumptions. I find the time periods used for the ratings to less
than useful.
Rating any fund over the crazy market we've had for the last 5 years or so is
not a valid predictor of the future.
|
| 50.6 | | CHESS::KAIKOW | | Thu Feb 13 1992 09:05 | 6 |
| re: 50.4
Also, Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine (used to be called Changing Times).
I don't think much of Forbes ratings either. BW, Money and Kiplinger's give you
nore info to look at, whatever you think of their ratings.
|
| 50.7 | Don't forget Barron's | DNEAST::STEVENS_JIM | | Thu Feb 13 1992 13:49 | 5 |
| This weeks Barron's had a complete pullout section on the past
years/quarters MF performance..
Jim
|
| 50.8 | | SUBSYS::GANESH | Ganesh | Fri Feb 14 1992 13:21 | 11 |
| I, too, have lost my enthusiasm for the Forbes' ratings tables
(after they unceremoniously trashed two or three funds that I'd
have given far better grades). I don't really use anyone's
"ratings tables" though.
Forbes, as well as Barron's, do some great in-depth interviews
with some of the lesser-known fund managers occasionally.
I find these interviews useful to pick out the ones with
the investment styles I'm comfortable with.
- Ganesh.
|
| 50.9 | put ratings in the trash! | CSC32::K_BOUCHARD | Ken Bouchard CXO3-2 | Fri May 01 1992 19:46 | 12 |
| This is one reason why I cancelled my subscription to Money mag. and
why I won't read other such magazines: Those mags. will all scream and
shout about how good a particular fund is and we should all invest in
it. Then,the next month ANOTHER ffund is touted and the first fund is
never heard from again. I'm convinced that no ratings tables are worth
even a second glance. Novices (like me) and experts (like you guys)
should just pick a decent fund from a reputable fund family annd invest
in it. Hopefully,over the long run,it'll perform. This is a better
strategy than trying to guess who will do well based on somebody's
ratings tables.
Ken
|
| 50.10 | | VMSDEV::HAMMOND | Charlie Hammond -- ZKO3-04/S23 -- dtn 381-2684 | Fri May 01 1992 20:09 | 26 |
| re: 50.9
> ... scream and
> shout about how good a particular fund is and we should all invest in
> it. Then,the next month ANOTHER fund is touted and the first fund is
> never heard from again. I'm convinced that no ratings tables are worth
> even a second glance. ..
Well, that is one perspective. Here is another.
What I try to do is to look for funds that show up as recommended
in two or more different magazines/newsletters for two or more
months in each. I then eliminate funds that are too agressive or
too conservative, load funds, funds that aren't available in NH,
funds that require a higher minimum than I have available, and any
others that don't mesh well with my "investor profile".
This leads to some dry spells -- it may be only a few times a year
that I find a "new" fund to be interested in. But it seems that
there is quite a bit of overlap between the funds you may see
various persons "recommending" in this conference and the ones
this approach finds.
SO... I guess I agree that no rating table is worth a second
glance for its individual merit, but I think that following a
couple different sources over time can be beneficial.
|