Putnam Funds

or Register to post new content in the forum

39 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Apr 29, 2008 5:06 pm

I heard it through the grapevine that Putnam is about to be, if not has already been, removed as a preferred vendor in the Edward Jones system.



Interesting.



Apr 29, 2008 5:57 pm

I bet Fes is pissed!!

Apr 29, 2008 6:09 pm

Yep, gone as of this morning.  Bumped to the Focus list along with Federated.  A good sign that management isn't going to be shy about upsetting the apple cart if need be.  It's about time. 

Apr 29, 2008 7:06 pm

When will they dump Hartford? Or do they still pay top dollar for shelf space?

Apr 29, 2008 8:41 pm
Philo Kvetch:

When will they dump Hartford? Or do they still pay top dollar for shelf space?



I love Hartford, you stupid idiot.  By the way I remember several of your post and you've been an idiot before so don't think that this is the only stupid post you've ever made.  Good luck.

Apr 30, 2008 7:36 am

In all fairness Ferris, they sucked before the bad press as well.

Apr 30, 2008 1:47 pm

Glad to see them removed.  Hopefully it won't take as long the next time one starts to spiral downward.

Apr 30, 2008 2:56 pm

Philo - have you looked at Hartford?  Start with their Checks and Balances story.  It's a really good one.  That brochure is one of the easiest stories to sell in the biz. 

 
Putnam isn't the worst fund family ever.   They are average at best.  They have some bright spots, but you have to dig for them.  Their money market rates are pretty competitive.  Their strategy funds stack up pretty well against most competitors.
 
With that said, I've not sent any new money to Putnam in years.  I'm not in the business to put my client's money into average at best money managers.     
Apr 30, 2008 4:47 pm

According to Barron's: Hartford is #1 for domestic equity and #5 for World Equity... Morningstar says they are number 2 for US stocks out of the top 20, Investment news says number 2 for US Stocks. Also, according to Barron's over 5 years they are the number 3 complex; 10 years the number 5 complex and number 4 for for 2007.   This is all according to Hartford's literature so feel free to double check their claims. To say they are are a terrible fund family is silly.

Apr 30, 2008 6:26 pm

Spiff, Hulk, I use a different metric for measuring suitability for investments. Mine is a bit more objective than who ranks the fund in the top ten. With that said, I find the Hartford family to be mediocre at best. Truthfully, I use mutual funds very sparingly and in my estimation, Hartford doesn't make the top 25.

May 1, 2008 9:57 am

The problem with those rankings is that they are ranking ENITRE complexes.  So you can be average at EVERYTHING, and beat some of the families that are phenomenal at ONE thing.  So the 'Jones' fund families tend to rank well in those studies because they are good in a lot of areas, but generally not experts at any one thing (though I like American Funds for Large Value and internationally compared to most).  It all comes back to the  A share mentality.  In order to be a Jones Preferred Family, you need to be able to offer everything.

 
There are some fantastic funds out there, which are run by single-fund shops, or shops that are only stellar in ONE or TWO funds (i.e. Loomis Strat Income, Ivy Asset Strategy, Dodge & Cox won't even register since they only have four funds, etc.).
 
I would say that if you are running A shares, the Jones Preferred Fund families are pretty good as far as having to stay within single fund families (not that I totally agree with this strategy....).
May 3, 2008 11:09 pm

Agreed, B24.

 
As I posted earlier, my use of mutual funds is limited.  (In truth, I find the fees unconscionable.)  When I do use them, it's for a specific application such as a global commodities fund.
May 4, 2008 12:35 pm

you find the fee unconsionable but yet you charge a similar fee for managing a stock or etf portfolio right. real stan up guy you are.

May 4, 2008 1:54 pm
ezmoney:

you find the fee unconsionable but yet you charge a similar fee for managing a stock or etf portfolio right. real stan up guy you are.

 
Where did I say that I charge a similar fee?
 
Please use capital letters to start a sentence, and learn to use spell check.  Couple that with improving your reading comprehension, and, at least online, you might be able to pass yourself off as a minimally intelligent and sentient being.
May 4, 2008 3:02 pm

yea yea yea fall back on grammer and english comprehension sue for a chat board. noone cares. what do you charge for a management fee?

May 4, 2008 3:07 pm

Once again, where did I say I charged management fees?  (That would fall under that "comprehension" thing that "noone" cares about.  There should be a space between 'no' and 'one', but I digress.)

May 5, 2008 2:51 am

So Philo.....do you charge a management fee?  If not what is your method for getting paid?

May 5, 2008 8:19 am

Are you in the brokerage business, Eyetattoo?  If so, then you should know how brokers get paid.  I don't do anything different.

 
 
May 5, 2008 5:22 pm

You find mutual fund fees unconscionable?  Is it the sales charge or expense ratio?  What do you use instead?  Just wondering//

May 5, 2008 5:53 pm

surely if you find mutual funds fees unconscionable, you must manage money for free.