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.
Interesting here is difference between risk assessments given by the two systems, M* and MFO..."low" for the former, and "4, or aggressive" for the latter.
That's because M* compares only within category, while MFO compares risk against overall market. An important distinction, which I am sensitive to. I worry that novice investors see that "low" and don't realize such good funds, like VDIGX, can drawdown heavy, like the -41.5% it did in 2003.
But if that is your expectation and you've allocated accordingly, steady as she goes...one of best funds in class.
To echo what Charles said, this is down to M*'s system which takes a snapshot of results at 10, 5, 3, and 1 years, weights those results, and compares them with the group the fund belongs to. VDIGX, VIG, PRBLX, et al suffer in stars because they deal in areas of the market that lags where the bull market, specifically last year's, was strongest.
It's sort of an apples to oranges comparison. Div growth funds are all still relatively predictable wealth compounders. But they're going to lag in strong upmarkets.
Edit: also keep in mind that VDIGX changed its mandate in 2003 from a utilities fund to a broader market fund. Similarly PRBLX changed from a balanced fund in 1998. Those changes aren't really reflected in ranking systems. I believe both are great owls, or as close to it as can be, taking that into account, fwiw.
Thanks for heads up on SPY and PRBLX. Both have strong points. I felt VDIGX would have a least a little more agility than SPY in a volatile market, even though they perform similar. And with PRBLX it has a slightly higher expense ratio and lower yield. But that is a great five star fund.
Comments
Strictly performance numbers...looks like dropped to 4 in December:
Still gets M*'s Gold Metal
Looks strong past three years. M* five year risk adjusted returns, which emphasize absolute returns, is a drag on composite rank.
Here's look at MFO risk/return profile on VDIGX:
Interesting here is difference between risk assessments given by the two systems, M* and MFO..."low" for the former, and "4, or aggressive" for the latter.
That's because M* compares only within category, while MFO compares risk against overall market. An important distinction, which I am sensitive to. I worry that novice investors see that "low" and don't realize such good funds, like VDIGX, can drawdown heavy, like the -41.5% it did in 2003.
But if that is your expectation and you've allocated accordingly, steady as she goes...one of best funds in class.
It's sort of an apples to oranges comparison. Div growth funds are all still relatively predictable wealth compounders. But they're going to lag in strong upmarkets.
Edit: also keep in mind that VDIGX changed its mandate in 2003 from a utilities fund to a broader market fund. Similarly PRBLX changed from a balanced fund in 1998. Those changes aren't really reflected in ranking systems. I believe both are great owls, or as close to it as can be, taking that into account, fwiw.
Regards,
Ted