Mike M posted recently a link that touched on the idea of herd mentality when investing. Just wondering the opposite here...what are your favorite contararian funds...temporarily out of favor...David has a list of
stars_in_the_shadows/...solid performing funds, but out of the limelight.
Do you have a few of your own?
Right now miners seem to be a contararian bet to me...USAGX, TGLDX or the equivalent ETFs GDX or GDXJ. Also, a rarely mentioned fund is BRUFX...a little hard to access (mail orders only), but seem like a candidate for "stars in the shadows" for its long term performance.
Comments
Your purchase was three years before Danoff started with the fund (though you did buy in before Vinick managed it for a couple of years). What was it about Contra that appealed to you then, especially since Lynch was still at Magellan? (I have vague recollections of looking at Contra in the early 90s and passing on it.)
Oops, now that I think about it maybe the fund did have a 2 or 3% front end load. Oh well, I think I've made it back by now.
You are also correct that Danoff didn't come on board until 1990. I bought it and the Puritan fund at the same time, eventually selling the latter to invest in the Low-Priced stock fund.
What we do have are some unloved sectors currently - the least loved being government bonds. Board members have documented the steady outflows of money from funds investing in this sector. So, I've moved a very small amount of cash (equal to a couple percent of total investments) to a TIPS fund - making a calculated bet I'll do better over the next 6-12 months there than I would leaving the money earning near zero percent in cash. Not a bullish call on bonds by any means - just a calculated bet. I've also noticed that my natural resources fund (PRAFX) and my international bond fund (OIBAX) are both lagging most other investments this year. (The Dollar's been strong.) The IB fund invests about 10% in emerging market debt - so the underperformance is significant. Tomorrow I'll shift a bit from my balanced fund - which is having a good year - into these two laggards. To repeat: Neither of these qualifies as "unheard-like" funds. They're just temporarily out of favor. Sorry I couldn't answer the question as it was put forth. But. I thought that with 200 recorded readers, and only 3 or 4 responses to the question, I'd give it a shot. Regards
Just happen to have some Fido data papers upon the floor from a massive "gonna get rid of some of this stuff". Contra had no sales charge in 1988, per this 1988 dated paper. Many other Fido growth funds at the time had 2% front load and 1% redemption (time period not indicated), and some other funds had a 3% only front load. FCNTX had an asset base, as of the end of 1987, of $86 million. Turnover rate of 134%, ER of .83%, mgr. was Stuart Williams and the fund lost 2% for 1987 (Oct. NASDAQ melt) vs +5.3% for the SP500 for that year. We held this fund for many years; prior to June, 2008. Mr. Danoff's anniversary date with this fund will be this Sept. 17.
Take care,
Catch
I'm really reaching into the deep recesses of my memory, and I may be imagining this, but I have the vaguest recollection of Fidelity adding a load to one or more funds - usually they were dropping them, but they may have added it to Contra post 1988. (I can find prospectuses from 1994 showing the 3% load, and the links I posted state that Contra had a load in 1992.)
That would be consistent with your papers and my more certain memory that I too looked at Contra some time back then (I wouldn't have considered a fund with a load). Like Mark, I took note of the stated mandate to look for beaten down stocks. Mark was attracted to this - I, being quite naive back then, was not. My thinking at the time (and on this point I'm quite clear) was: how arrogant, for Fidelity to think that it can find value that the market doesn't.
Contrarian investing is more subtle than that - it's not finding value that no one else sees, but finding value that few see yet. That is, buying while a stock is still losing favor, but when there is a glimmer of hope.
The first Fidelity fund I picked for my IRA (again naively, because Fidelity was the land of Lynch) was then called Freedom Fund, later called Fidelity Retirement Growth, and now Fidelity Independence. So now you know why its ticker is FDFFX. I picked it because it was supposed to be a go anywhere fund like Magellan, but without the load; also tailored for retirement accounts (it wouldn't pay any attention to tax consequences).
Finally (and I'm pretty confident of my memory here), Fidelity tended to put 3% loads on its growth funds (except for older clunkers like Trend), while it put 2% front end plus 1% back end on its growth and income funds.
or longer-term --- 3/5/6/7/8y is pretty brutal, a bit less so for Perm, given the market overall.
You have me digging through more stuff.
1993 FCNTX data: has the 3% front load, except retirement accts., asset base now $6.2 billion from $86 million in 1987, ER moved up from .83% in 1987 to 1.13%
Back to my chores.
Take care,
Catch
Thanks for your response. I agree with you on both of your unloved sectors...NR, Miners, Metals...and International Bonds. I own VGPMX long term in the Metals & Mining space and I added to it in June with some profits from VGHCX. My two IB positions are PYEMX and TGBAX. I am trying meet a $50K initial minimum so I can replace TGBAX with TTRZX. Good IB fund managers will find a way through these bond issues and I believe these managers are worth finding and staying invested in at some percentage level.
Another sector with the hiccups recently in my portfolio has been Real Estate related investments.
Typically when sectors (sector funds) under performs they move to the front of the minds of most investors. The herd often will sell...some hold on a little longer...a few buy more. If these funds are long term holds in my portfolio, such as real estate, NR and IB are for me (in small amounts) I like to think I am discipline enough to reallocate some of my portfolio into these holdings. My brain counters with thoughts of picking bottoms or catching a falling knife. A portfolio game plan of disciplined emotionless mechanical rebalancing is a challenging process for us humans.
I have often wondered ..."would a single balanced funds do a better job of balancing a collection of allocations (investments) than a individual investor balancing a collection of funds for their collective portfolio?"
MXXVX.
Sorry I thought you said "unheard" of funds. Still I'm going to give you another "unheard" of fund I own. JORDX.
You noted: "I have often wondered ..."would a single balanced funds do a better job of balancing a collection of allocations (investments) than a individual investor balancing a collection of funds for their collective portfolio?"
Knowing that you know; and my consideration that you are among the sharper knives in the holding rack here at MFO, we all are running some type of balanced fund of funds, eh?
Our own particular human nature, modified by everything affecting our lives today; which has been built upon all the layers of everything that has affected us previous, causes a most complex scenario for investing.
The ultimate personal challenge, of we being complex creatures "fiddling" in a more complex area of the global nature; and most of the time, the other players (the big houses and insiders) moving vast sums of money in milliseconds. We little investors are up against so many unknowns and variables, mixed in with large amounts of greed, speed and sometimes corruption.
I have heard more than several times over many years of investing that "you are nuts to be an investor". They state that "it" is just a rigged game. I could never reply against that; except to query as to what is their alternative. This question generally causes head scratching and few real replies.
All here has some type of multi-alternative, multi-asset, psuedo conservative, moderate, aggressive blenda-matic equity/bond mix of domestic and international flavors ranging from the mega to micro cap equities of the known and unknown companies, and bonds of the highest quality available to the the junk of the junk pile for bonds. Blend all of this with hugh piles of data, talking heads, politics, global unrest in social areas and wondering whether those who have so much influence (central banks, etc.) into the investment market place really know what they are doing before going to the musical chairs dance; and "who" stops the music.
I have not attempted to add; but have thought about how many companies we have very small pieces of, via equity and bond holdings. Thousands, eh?
Take care,
Catch
Thanks Catch,
As investors we also need to gauge and remind ourselves what we are trying to accomplish. What is our goal with all this?
Someone here at MFO shared Ben Graham's quote on successful investing:
"safety of principal and satisfactory return."
As investors we all should be acutely aware of "safety of principal". This is what we have sweated over and saved. The "satisfactory return" piece is relative to our age, our time horizon, our risk tolerance, or our place along the economic continuum, as well as many other factors.
If an individual can achieve a "satisfactory 7% yearly return" they can double their principal in ten years. This, to me, now becomes the new principal. In another 10 years the new principal doubles again. In a 40 year accumulation time horizon this doubling happens 4 times and turns "X" principal into 16"X" principal. The power of compounding.
So, say a 25 year old could muster up $10,000 it would compound over 35 years and equate to $160,000 at age 60. Additionally, this worker might saved another $10,000 over the next 5 years and so on. Each subsequent principal investment would go through fewer double intervals as this worker aged, but in total it would look something like this:
Eight $10,000 "principal" contributions every 5 years invested at an average 7% return would equal about $525,000 at age 65. I would consider the entire amount ($525,000) now "principal" and at this point in life add an additional phrase to Ben Graham's quote:
"safety of principal and a satisfactory return to help fund a comfortable retirement"
Thanks for the fund-"dahh"-mental analysis on my error... I will correct.
I've realized one needs to be patient. It worked for me with FAIRX. With HSGFX not so much. With MXXVX - I keep selling taking gains and buying it back. Hope to sell it again this year, but darn thing has 1 year redemption fee to trying to time it. JORDX also it has worked out for me.
Waiting for SEQUX, GOODX, and few others to tank. That's the way to do it people !!!