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.
No indication if a manager has departed, or if the strategy has changed, or what the expense ratio is, stewardship, capital gain implications, etc, etc.
...or category drift, mis-categorization, or survivorship bias, etc.
Hey, maybe next time Mr. Moran asks one of his tough questions, I ask you to help me answer .
I think it's primarily a marketing choice which is why I mentioned that it had happened in another of their funds. Not that I necessarily forsee what problem it is solving.
@Charles Thanks. I had to go away and think for a couple hours until I saw it. I think this is a productive and interesting thread though.
Do I remember correctly that there was a debate whether to include funds with less than a three/five year history, or to call them something different?
First, a disclaimer. I'm a Steve Romick fan. If FpA did not charge so much for FPACX, I would have owned it long ago.
A look at the numbers...
They are great.
Top quintile across its lifetime and across last two full market cycles with consistently moderate risk.
OK, it's "only" forth quintile during last 3 and 5 years, but that again is because of the defensive nature of the fund given the bull market.
But who cares?
Again, if FPACX had a lower er, I would own it in a NY minute.
In this case as well, MFO results consistent with M*:
OK, BUFBX...
Ha!
A classic case.
Its 10 year numbers are great, but it's lifetime numbers and full cycle results not so great.
If it helps, when BUFBX soon crosses the 20 year mark, it will NOT be a GO. Another case where GO assignment should be taken in context of age group.
Looks like M* has same issue here, since its ratings only go out 10 years:
Hey, working hard to make the full cycle and life time metrics and much more available to MFO readers. Thanks to good questions and suggestions from readers on the board, I've come to appreciate full cycle and lifetime numbers more and more.
Early on, I believe the board debated why not 7, 12, and 15 years?
When we first rolled it out, I think we had "aspiring GOs" or something like that for funds that were top quintile the past 1 and 3 years. But, after discussing with David, we thought to just simplify it to current definition: top quintile for all evaluation periods 3 years or more, as applicable.
Nothing scientific here. Just the definition we chose.
Think too the board debated why not ratings based on other metrics (absolute, Sortino, upside/downside) as well, which is something again we are working on. Probably won't change the GO definition, but I believe it would be valuable to have the other metrics...just to know.
Well, not necessary, then. If it were my Owl award project, I would try to think more deeply on precisely what --- numerically --- would better take into account FPACX and PRBLX (say) superior protective behaviors and dip/recovery ratios since 2007. Otherwise forget it; it is what it is, which to my view is surprisingly less useful than it might be. If it is simply recency bias, well, then. Please don't trot out 'manager departed, strategy changed, ER, stewardship, capital gain implications, category drift, miscategorization, survivorship bias, …' and that sort of thing; no one in this discussion is concerned about or unaware of those muddying variables, which go without saying.
Comments
Hey, maybe next time Mr. Moran asks one of his tough questions, I ask you to help me answer
Do I remember correctly that there was a debate whether to include funds with less than a three/five year history, or to call them something different?
First, a disclaimer. I'm a Steve Romick fan. If FpA did not charge so much for FPACX, I would have owned it long ago.
A look at the numbers...
They are great.
Top quintile across its lifetime and across last two full market cycles with consistently moderate risk.
OK, it's "only" forth quintile during last 3 and 5 years, but that again is because of the defensive nature of the fund given the bull market.
But who cares?
Again, if FPACX had a lower er, I would own it in a NY minute.
In this case as well, MFO results consistent with M*:
OK, BUFBX...
Ha!
A classic case.
Its 10 year numbers are great, but it's lifetime numbers and full cycle results not so great.
If it helps, when BUFBX soon crosses the 20 year mark, it will NOT be a GO. Another case where GO assignment should be taken in context of age group.
Looks like M* has same issue here, since its ratings only go out 10 years:
Hey, working hard to make the full cycle and life time metrics and much more available to MFO readers. Thanks to good questions and suggestions from readers on the board, I've come to appreciate full cycle and lifetime numbers more and more.
Now, time for another cup of coffee.
Thanks man.
Early on, I believe the board debated why not 7, 12, and 15 years?
When we first rolled it out, I think we had "aspiring GOs" or something like that for funds that were top quintile the past 1 and 3 years. But, after discussing with David, we thought to just simplify it to current definition: top quintile for all evaluation periods 3 years or more, as applicable.
Nothing scientific here. Just the definition we chose.
Think too the board debated why not ratings based on other metrics (absolute, Sortino, upside/downside) as well, which is something again we are working on. Probably won't change the GO definition, but I believe it would be valuable to have the other metrics...just to know.
Well, not necessary, then. If it were my Owl award project, I would try to think more deeply on precisely what --- numerically --- would better take into account FPACX and PRBLX (say) superior protective behaviors and dip/recovery ratios since 2007. Otherwise forget it; it is what it is, which to my view is surprisingly less useful than it might be. If it is simply recency bias, well, then. Please don't trot out 'manager departed, strategy changed, ER, stewardship, capital gain implications, category drift, miscategorization, survivorship bias, …' and that sort of thing; no one in this discussion is concerned about or unaware of those muddying variables, which go without saying.
Sorry to disappoint.
Hopefully, we been be able to agree on other topics.