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

Confused by Morningstar

There is a new M* value factor article - Best Ways to Reach for Value, Whenever it Shines
Scrolling down to the Factor Profile graphics for VTV / DFLVX / VLUE, Style seems just plain wrong, as all are depicted as being paragons of Growth.
Just for comparison, I looked up Factor Profile on the Portfolio tabs for HACAX / FDGRX / WGROX, and my goodness, they appear to be flat-out value funds.
Have I been investing backwards all this time?


  • Unfortunately M* has abandoned individual investors as they see much higher margins aiming at advisers and their proprietary ETFs. There are many posts here about how this has affected us all.

    Quality of editing, lack of innovative ideas, cutting back of mutual fund recommendations and evaluations, truncating of data on funds and this repetitive harping about "buckets".

    The only thing I find of value anymore is the portfolio analysis. As far as I can tell this is still the only place I know of on the web where you can see what a exposures a portfolio has, although Portfolio Visualizer is getting close
  • M* seems to have the value factor backward for all funds (or at least the few funds I spot checked). Evidence can be found by comparing the example for Brown Capital Management Small Company (BCSIX) in their Factor Analysis User Guide with the factor analysis for this fund shown on its fund page.

    The former shows the fund as nearly pure growth as does the fund's style chart, while the fund page factor analysis reports the fund to be nearly pure value. Of course the reporting dates are different (Oct 2019 vs. Dec 2019), but with a 17% turnover, it's not likely that the fund converted suddenly from a growth fund to a value fund.

    It appears that either no one looks at M*'s factor analysis (so no one has reported an error), meaning the factor analysis is not something readers care about, or as @sma3 suggests, M* has been informed and just doesn't care. Either way, M* is not meeting the needs of its retail subscribers.

  • M* is confused by M* at times, too.

Sign In or Register to comment.