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.
Agreed. I was just plugging in a few funds and came up with some curious ratings. HSCSX, for example, was rated as a "poor" fund. That's news to me. The charts to support their reasoning are very vague and unscientific, IMHO.
I enjoy Max Funds as a quick-take. May not be current and certainly not the full story. I don't know of any other sites that even attempt to evaluate hot money. That has a big effect if you're a long term investor. Killed MFLDX (along with a lot of other problems).
Added 3/4: (1) I've held mostly the same 8-10 core funds for anywhere from 10-25 years with a few good firms. (2) I'll also take an occasional long-shot (speculative play) on a very badly beaten up fund as I did with OPGSX in September '15 and PRLAX 6-8 weeks ago. These spec plays are not intended to be held more than a few months to a few years - time to bounce a lot higher if the educated guess works out. (Yes - they can also fall, so weighing potential upside and downside is crucial)
The point here: For neither of the above types of purchases is the opinion of Max Funds, *M or MarketWatch useful or given much consideration. For the first type (core holdings) I want low fees, stable competent management, good service and annual reports that are comprehensive and readable. For the second (speculative plays) I want a fund that's been hammered hard over several years (probably down 25% or more over the last year). And Nobody loves it anymore. Than it's a matter of trying to become educated on the the fund's investments, reasons for its poor performance lately, macroeconomic conditions that might help going forward - and than taking a plunge, usually with only 2-5% of total holdings.
Sorry so long winded. Guess I've strayed from Max's original point on Max funds. But my point is you need to take all these with a grain of salt. Don't expect them to always point you in the best direction. Use your own pointer.
Yes they have HSCSX listed as the best overall small cap value. but then give it a POOR rating. Really makes no sense to me. Kind of reminds me of the old MAD Magazine.
Comments
Added 3/4: (1) I've held mostly the same 8-10 core funds for anywhere from 10-25 years with a few good firms. (2) I'll also take an occasional long-shot (speculative play) on a very badly beaten up fund as I did with OPGSX in September '15 and PRLAX 6-8 weeks ago. These spec plays are not intended to be held more than a few months to a few years - time to bounce a lot higher if the educated guess works out. (Yes - they can also fall, so weighing potential upside and downside is crucial)
The point here: For neither of the above types of purchases is the opinion of Max Funds, *M or MarketWatch useful or given much consideration. For the first type (core holdings) I want low fees, stable competent management, good service and annual reports that are comprehensive and readable. For the second (speculative plays) I want a fund that's been hammered hard over several years (probably down 25% or more over the last year). And Nobody loves it anymore. Than it's a matter of trying to become educated on the the fund's investments, reasons for its poor performance lately, macroeconomic conditions that might help going forward - and than taking a plunge, usually with only 2-5% of total holdings.
Sorry so long winded. Guess I've strayed from Max's original point on Max funds. But my point is you need to take all these with a grain of salt. Don't expect them to always point you in the best direction. Use your own pointer.
http://customer.wcta.net/roberty/
Regards,
Ted
FGMNX:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/intermediate-government/fidelity®-gnma-fund/fgmnx
HSCSX:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/small-blend/homestead-small-company-stock-fund/hscsx