Business Week's Mutual Fund Survey

Thread View: net.invest

4 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

4 total messages Started by Bill Tuthill Fri, 28 Feb 1986 02:03

#1062

Author: Bill Tuthill
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1986 02:03

36 lines
2227 bytes

The February 24th issue of Business Week contains a pretty bad
survey of mutual funds.  I wouldn't recommend buying the issue
just for the survey.  Their list of the 24 "Top Performers"
contains fully 15 (count 'em, fifteen) funds that returned an
average of under 20% a year over the last ten years.  With all
the good mutual funds around, you shouldn't have to put up with
this kind of lousy performance.  Among the low-performers were
Vanguard's perennially pathetic Wellesley and Wellington funds
(with 10-year averages of 14.1% and 14.6% respectively), and the
Federated Stock & Bond fund (with a 14.3% average).  Business
Week completely missed good long-term performers such as 20th
Century Select and Evergreen, and good shorter-term performers
such as Century Shares and Quasar.

Here is an abbreviated list taken from Business Week of only the
mutual funds averaging 20% or better over ten years:

			10yr%	3yr%	1yr%	load	expenses
Acorn			23.7	19.7	31.4	none	 .78%
Am. Cap. Comstock	22.4	11.8	21.3	8.5%	 .58%
Am. Cap. Pace		26.8	13.2	22.4	8.5%	 .62%
Fidelity Equity-Income	22.6	21.3	25.0	2.0%	 .69%
Fidelity Magellan	34.2	26.8	42.9	3.0%	1.10%
Guardian Park Avenue	21.6	24.4	33.0	8.5%	 .78%
Nicholas		23.9	20.9	29.7	none	 .90%
OTC Securities		24.7	22.4	35.4	8.0%	1.28%
Partners		21.5	18.7	29.8	one	 .93% + 12(b)-1

The American Capital Pace used to be a good fund, but has really
fallen off lately.  A 1985 return of only 22.5% isn't very stunning.
Fidelity's OTC and Overseas funds both did better than 60% in 1985.

Lindner, Mutual Shares, Sequoia, Vanguard Windsor and QDSP-I would
be on the list, except they are closed to new accounts.

Bill Tuthill

Re: Business Week's Mutual Fund Survey

#1071

Author: ekrell
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1986 19:44

14 lines
1396 bytes

In article <3298@sun.uucp> tut@sun.uucp (Bill Tuthill) writes:
>
>Among the low-performers were
>Vanguard's perennially pathetic Wellesley and Wellington funds
>(with 10-year averages of 14.1% and 14.6% respectively)

Bear in mind that these are so-called balanced funds, investing in both
bonds and stocks. Wellesley invests 65% in bonds and 35% in stocks while
Wellington invests 65% in stocks and 35% in bonds. It is unfair to compare
them with stock funds since their investment objective (and risk involved)
is different. Among balanced funds, these two perform way above average.
-- 
    Eduardo Krell               UCLA Computer Science Department
    ekrell@ucla-locus.arpa      ..!{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!ekrell

Re: Business Week's Mutual Fund Survey

#1098

Author: wfi
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1986 21:44

15 lines
1243 bytes

In article <3298@sun.uucp> tut@sun.uucp (Bill Tuthill) writes:

>The February 24th issue of Business Week contains a pretty bad
>survey of mutual funds.  I wouldn't recommend buying the issue
>just for the survey.  ...

I'm a new subscriber to net.invest, so if I'm rehashing old topics
please excuse me.

Since you don't like Business Week's survey of mutual funds, is there
any survey of the top 20 mutual funds that you would unhesitatingly 
recommend to someone? Are there any you would recommend with
qualifications, and if so what are the qualifications? Thanks.

                     -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly

Re: Business Week's Mutual Fund Survey

#1115

Author: ekrell
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1986 00:37

20 lines
1681 bytes

In article <720@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes:
>
>is there
>any survey of the top 20 mutual funds that you would unhesitatingly 
>recommend to someone?

The Mutual Funds survey published by Money magazine every fall and the
Forbes Mutual Fund directory (also printed in the fall) are two excellent
sources of mutual fund performance. The latter is especially good as it
includes performance in both UP and DOWN markets for all funds.

Every issue of Money magazine has a section on mutual funds, with the top
performers in the last month, year, 3 years, and 5 years periods in several
categories (growth funds, international funds, sector funds, etc.). They
recently expanded that section to also include money market and bond funds,
also divided into several categories (corporate bonds, municipal bonds, etc).
I think it is a good source of information.
-- 
    Eduardo Krell               UCLA Computer Science Department
    ekrell@ucla-locus.arpa      ..!{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!ekrell

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads