Obviously any account over 250k I use Morean Growth and Growth fund

   





Nice one!

You can use any criteria you want for selecting the “best” mutual funds but at the end of the day the asset allocation of whichever funds you use is far more important than finding the “best” funds.

You can use any criteria you want for selecting the “best” mutual funds but at the end of the day the asset allocation of whichever funds you use is far more important than finding the “best” funds.

Interesting article:

I agree with the premise that the more money the manager has in the fund the better it performs. I also like the boutique firms that run 1 fund, but do it real well.

Squash, what don’t you like about Franklin ?

Best Mutual Fund… isn’t that an oxymoron?

[quote=Jebediah] You can use any criteria you want for selecting the “best” mutual funds but at the end of the day the asset allocation of whichever funds you use is far more important than finding the “best” funds.[/quote]

I disagree… according to you we could all use Putnam and do just as good…

[quote=Squash1] [quote=Jebediah] You can use any criteria you want for selecting the “best” mutual funds but at the end of the day the asset allocation of whichever funds you use is far more important than finding the “best” funds.[/quote] I disagree… according to you we could all use Putnam and do just as good…

[quote=Moraen] [quote=Jebediah] [quote=Squash1] [quote=Jebediah] You can use any criteria you want for selecting the “best” mutual funds but at the end of the day the asset allocation of whichever funds you use is far more important than finding the “best” funds.[/quote] I disagree… according to you we could all use Putnam and do just as good…[/quote]

Really, how did asset allocation work out this last couple of years? Most asset classes become correlated in a down market.

I’m sad to see that I won’t be able to be part of this discussion this evening, but for the record, I have retired clients that invested with me in Q4 2007, that are now AT WORST down 5.5%, NET OF FEES.  And yes, they remained fully invested, at all times.  I have a handful of others that vary from -5% to +5% (I went into production in the second half of 07, so I don’t have that many clients from that time period).

Now, had I start in 06, or 05, or earlier, ALL of my retired clients would be in the black right now over that time period.  And I’m a very plain vanilla guy for the most part.

And I don’t believe, nor did I see anything that indicates that EVERYTHING becomes negatively correlated in a down market…and even things that DO become correlation, we aren’t talking “perfectly correlated.” 

Have a good nite everyone.

The accounts that listen to me are up 20% + since inception without leverage ie Erisa money. Leveraged accounts are up 40%+. My ‘best efforts’ accounts are well into the 60% net of all fees with a beta of around .35. AA is very over rated IMHO. I’d rather use stops, go short and arb every merger I can sink my teeth into. I’ll never stop banging the market neutrality drum. Rebalancing is just a way to justify the endless fees.

[quote=iceco1d] I’m sad to see that I won’t be able to be part of this discussion this evening, but for the record, I have retired clients that invested with me in Q4 2007, that are now AT WORST down 5.5%, NET OF FEES. And yes, they remained fully invested, at all times. I have a handful of others that vary from -5% to +5% (I went into production in the second half of 07, so I don’t have that many clients from that time period).Now, had I start in 06, or 05, or earlier, ALL of my retired clients would be in the black right now over that time period. And I’m a very plain vanilla guy for the most part.And I don’t believe, nor did I see anything that indicates that EVERYTHING becomes negatively correlated in a down market…and even things that DO become correlation, we aren’t talking “perfectly correlated.” Have a good nite everyone.

[/quote]



I changed it to most things. Sleep tight ice. It’s on like donkey kong on Tuesday.



If you look at the indices, from October 2007 until March 2009, they pretty much moved in lockstep.   B24 posted a link a little while back (I think you were on vacation). By staying fully invested, your clients will of course, likely recover.   And if you are allocating them “properly”, will have less distance to go and will get there faster. But it does little to calm nerves in the short term.

[quote=Gaddock] The accounts that listen to me are up 20% + since inception without leverage ie Erisa money. Leveraged accounts are up 40%+. My ‘best efforts’ accounts are well into the 60% net of all fees. AA is very over rated IMHO. I’d rather use stops, go short and arb every merger I can sink my teeth into. I’ll never stop banging the market neutrality drum. Rebalancing is just a way to justify the endless fees.

[quote=Gaddock]The accounts that listen to me are up 20% + since inception without leverage ie Erisa money. Leveraged accounts are up 40%+. My ‘best efforts’ accounts are well into the 60% net of all fees. AA is very over rated IMHO. I’d rather use stops, go short and arb every merger I can sink my teeth into. I’ll never stop banging the market neutrality drum. Rebalancing is just a way to justify the endless fees.

Also true. I don’t have any retired clients anymore. The ones I will have in a few short years will be living off of military pensions (and likely other incomes). AA is still for average returns in my opinion.



Good night everybody. Gotta long drive ahead of me in the morning. Wish me luck. USMC Mud Run! MUD RUN! Hooah!

[quote=Jebediah][quote=Gaddock]The accounts that listen to me are up 20% + since inception without leverage ie Erisa money. Leveraged accounts are up 40%+. My ‘best efforts’ accounts are well into the 60% net of all fees. AA is very over rated IMHO. I’d rather use stops, go short and arb every merger I can sink my teeth into. I’ll never stop banging the market neutrality drum. Rebalancing is just a way to justify the endless fees.

[quote=Moraen] [quote=Gaddock] The accounts that listen to me are up 20% + since inception without leverage ie Erisa money. Leveraged accounts are up 40%+. My ‘best efforts’ accounts are well into the 60% net of all fees. AA is very over rated IMHO. I’d rather use stops, go short and arb every merger I can sink my teeth into. I’ll never stop banging the market neutrality drum. Rebalancing is just a way to justify the endless fees.

Anyone have a good short duration fund that is liquid? I’ve looked at Legg Mason short term muni class C that does not have a CDSC for clients looking for higher yield over CDs. Just curious if any of you are using short term bond funds that don’t have a holding period.