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.
FYI: Funds that use quantitative stock-picking models are on a roll. A list of 52 U.S.-sold quant funds compiled by Morningstar beat more than 80% of their respective peers over the trailing three years through June 13, and the group outperformed its respective peers in 2011, 2012, 2013, and thus far in 2014. Regards, Ted http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=651588
I've been debating whether using the Lede is a proper introduction or not. It is the sentence the writer of the article decided on as the best hook to get you to read the whole thing and thus is supposed to serve as an introduction and summary of what the article discusses. Yet it also lacks additional synthesis. I have certainly appreciated the added description though.
Sigh, well the sentence does tickle my curiosity much more than the old title with a link. I don't think this article is one of those needing serious analysis. It's more information than anything else. Perhaps, this time, the amount of text is appropriate. Why comment if all you have is another useless attack. Do you have your own analyses to add? I don't enjoy when Ted attacks or gets attacked. Attacks rather ruin my day and my having a good day is important. So is lurking at MFO.
Comments