Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

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

  • Shop at Amazon!

    Use the Observer's Amazon.com link to shop normally. MFO will receive a small commission for each sale, and it won't cost you a penny more.

@Mike - Funds with Sequoia-Like Numbers

edited December 2013 in Fund Discussions
Below are a few 20 and 10 year no-load equity and asset allocation funds that have comparable (if not better) risk/return numbers than SEQUX, perhaps greatest fund of all time:

image

The First Eagle Fund FEAFX comparison is almost uncanny, as seen in this M* performance plot:

image

Comments

  • Wow Charles! Thanks so much for pulling this together so quickly... This is perfect. Yacktman is another one that offers a close comparison.... The nice thing with yacktman too is continuity in management with father son team.. I will read up on First Eagle... Any idea why none of the Artisan funds make the cut?
  • beebee
    edited December 2013
    Wondering if OAKBX would work as a comparative choice:

    image
  • Hi Charles. Back late 2009 I started re-building my portfolio after selling off funds during the recession. For my large cap fund I zeroed in on SEQUX, PRBLX and YAFFX. The funds are pretty similar; long time management, focused holding, all will go to cash when needed. I went with the Yacktman fund because of the great results in '08 and '09 - performance chasing maybe. The other reason was that Sequoia had transfer fees in my 401k account, Yacktman did not. Since that decision, SEQUX has outperformed YAFFX handily. So, I kind of had buyers remorse.

    I like holding a minimal amount of funds. Generally only 1 fund in a category. I don't buy into the manager-diversification stuff, holding a bunch of similar style funds. To me that just waters down results. But, all brains are wired differently. I own a few funds on the list you show, YAFFX, FPACX have been on my team for almost 5 years and recently bought MQIFX. Your data and David's commentaries have become a significant source for decision making for me. Thanks for your efforts.
  • Hi Charles, just a quick question, and completely thread hijacking, so apologies. I probably missed it somewhere, but did you ever make the entire 3Q fund spreadsheet available? I saw the list of just the Great Owl funds, but never saw the entire database like was made available through 2Q. Thanks for all your hard work!
  • Reply to @mrdarcey: Hi sir. Accipiter and Chip should be launching the new search engine soon! It will have all funds rated, more than 7500 and will be updated quarterly.
  • Reply to @Charles: Excellent, Smithers...

    I knew that was in the works, I just didn't know if/when they were getting it off the ground, and I'm greedy for more. Thanks again for all the hard work everyone on the MFO team puts in! I hope Santa brings you each a bottle of whichever single-malt scotch your hearts desire.
  • edited December 2013
    Here are the numbers for OAKBX and some of the older Artisan funds:

    image

    The Artisan funds have tended to be a bit more volatile than SEQUX, while OAKBX returns have not been as strong.
  • Reply to @Charles:

    Hi Charles,

    Thanks for the Artisan numbers. It appears that ARTQX compares favorably with NSEIX in the Mid-Cap Value space. Do you agree?

    I really need to refresh myself on your Rating System Definitions.

    Mona

  • edited December 2013
    Reply to @Mona: Hi Mona.

    There was a good discussion on the board a little while back about NSEIX inconsistency:

    http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discussions-3/#/discussion/comment/31155

    But for the last 10 years, its risk adjusted numbers are actually a bit better that ARTQX. Looks like ARTQX is closed to new investors.

    Here's link to MFO Ratings Definitions.
  • Thanks so much for providing the Artisan numbers Charles. Really appreciate your research on this
  • Useful information in the first chart (for me) and GBMFX is a no-minimum, transaction fee at TDA. I'd always assumed GMO was for the wealthy and the $10M minimum kept the riff-raff and me out; but now I wonder.
    Has anyone used their funds and regretted it? I'm a bit more worried about downside and their Martin ratio is appealing. It was hard to ride Sequoia into the valley of 2008-9.
  • What GMO does in their funds is often very different from what they suggest in the regular report on where the best returns will be. Much of it has to do with restrictions on what can be in mutual funds, as well as what the prospectus allows and does not allow. I have been told by a former investor in GMO funds that they did not get what they thought they were getting, then admitted they had not read the prospectus and the most recent annual report before investing. The fund's numbers suggest it has a very conservative bent, with its best feature a fairly strong down-market performance.
  • Thanks, Bob C.
    Lost my post and don't feel up to repeating it. I did read the prospectus. It's goal is 5% net of fees above CPI. Not a high hurdle, but their goal is to be net positive, not just better than an index. They failed in 2008, but recovered in 2009. M* gives 4* but low comparator rankings. Fund Mojo gives 5*. Looks ok for a geezer with low expectations, and I don't need the $10M entrance fee, but probably wait a few weeksto see what's happening in the market.
  • I love the chart. Very informative.

    The good news is that I have held 3 of these funds for more than 25 years (PRCWX, MQIFX, MDISX), and one for several years (RYSEX). Oh, how I wish I had invested more than I did.

    My point isn’t how smart I am. I’m not. I don’t have any great talent as an investor and I have lost money by making stupid investments. I did do one thing right. I invested my retirement money in funds that at the time had a record for excellent long-term results with low risk. The magazines and newsletters of twenty/thirty years ago recommended these funds as high quality investments (I believe Forbes magazine, for example, consistently gave the Mutual Series funds “A” grades in both up and down markets, in its ratings in the 1980s.) I simply followed that advice.

    My point is that the funds that have solid long-term records today are probably going to be the winners ten years from now. That is true even if there are manager changes (I do miss Michael Price) and events we don’t expect.
Sign In or Register to comment.