Best Mutual Funds
We all manage different ways, so this will all be relative to how you manage your investments, but I wanted to start a thread on some of the best active funds out there that people use for their clients, so we can share ideas. This list is not all inclusive for me, but tends to be some of my core holdings:
First Eagle Global Mutual Discovery PIMCO Total Return Capital Income Builder Blackrock Global IVY Asset Strategy Templeton Global Bond Hartford Cap App I used to use NFJ Small cap Value, but it closed TIP (ETF) Some others I am looking at, but have not used much yet: Evergreen Asset Allocation PIMCO All Asset All AuthorityCalamos Convertible
Blackrock Equity Dividend AIM Mid Cap Core Equity Thornburg International Value Oppenheimer Developing Markets Metropolitan West High Yield Bond Oppenheimer Limited Term Municipal John Hanc*** Balanced (100% of most accounts that I manage w/less than $20k in it) There's the short list of some of the better ones we use[quote=iceco1d]Vanguard.
Just kidding (not really, but you said active). Something that comes in handy for me is the Goldman Short Duration Tax-Free fund. For the right piece of money, I like it a lot. For those of you doing any NQ money, and using mutual funds, it wouldn't hurt to take a look at the tax-managed equity funds from:Goldman Sachs Eaton-Vance Russell Fidelity Advisor Vanguard Hope that's helpful.[/quote] Actually, for NQ money, I don't use as many funds, but I tend to use a state-specific muni fund from either Nuveen or Franklin for reinvesting un-used muni-bond interest payments. I have also been pleasantly surprised with some of Federated's tax-managed funds, although I don't use them all that much. I cannot get my hands around Goldman. I know they are smart people, but their mutual funds don't excite me at all.
I don’t do much MF business - actually almost none - but I do like:
The Russell Funds Mutal Discovery BULLX NRO (personal investment REIT ETF) - this etf was beaten down seriously due to the real estate bubble, then the Lehman collapse (Neuberger Berman). Once it was announced that NB employees were buying the firm, I got in pretty close to bottom (hopefully).I like hartford micap now that it has been reopened for that space.
[quote=Wet_Blanket]I don’t do much MF business - actually almost none - but I do like:
The Russell Funds Mutal Discovery BULLX NRO (personal investment REIT ETF) - this etf was beaten down seriously due to the real estate bubble, then the Lehman collapse (Neuberger Berman). Once it was announced that NB employees were buying the firm, I got in pretty close to bottom (hopefully). [/quote] What kind of business do you do?Here’s another question - everyone talks about how ridiculous and “rear view mirror-ish” it is to use Morningstar.
So whats your process for choosing funds?Best Mutual Fund… isn’t that an oxymoron?
Obviously any account over 250k I use Morean Growth and Growth fund
[quote=Sportsfreakbob]Here’s another question - everyone talks about how ridiculous and “rear view mirror-ish” it is to use Morningstar.
So whats your process for choosing funds? [/quote] Historical absolute returns, consistency of returns across mutliple investment cycles, strategy/record during bear markets, quality/tenure of manager, process, strategy, and ability to replicate process. If you look back at my list of funds, most of them rank very high by those measures.B24 - I have been all over Mutual Discovery since you reintroduced me to it a few months back, great stuff, thanks
First of all I would never buy anything with Franklin except their Global Bond Fund…
Check out
Fairholme Fund
Permanent Portfolio
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.
Reasoning ?First of all I would never buy anything with Franklin except their Global Bond Fund…
I completely agreeYou 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=B24][quote=Sportsfreakbob]Here’s another question - everyone talks about how ridiculous and “rear view mirror-ish” it is to use Morningstar.
So whats your process for choosing funds? [/quote] Historical absolute returns, consistency of returns across mutliple investment cycles, strategy/record during bear markets, quality/tenure of manager, process, strategy, and ability to replicate process. If you look back at my list of funds, most of them rank very high by those measures. [/quote]Do you have any screening tools that you use to uncover funds with these chaacteristics?
Jebediah is spot on. So for Short Bond, if i use a fund at all, the Lord abbett is good with a current yield over 4 and duration under 2. Historical data mostly irrelevent, of course, but short duration will mean less drop as rates go up.
[quote=Sportsfreakbob] [quote=B24][quote=Sportsfreakbob]Here’s another question - everyone talks about how ridiculous and “rear view mirror-ish” it is to use Morningstar.
So whats your process for choosing funds? [/quote] Historical absolute returns, consistency of returns across mutliple investment cycles, strategy/record during bear markets, quality/tenure of manager, process, strategy, and ability to replicate process. If you look back at my list of funds, most of them rank very high by those measures. [/quote]Do you have any screening tools that you use to uncover funds with these chaacteristics?
[/quote] Time. And lots of reading. Returns are easy, it's everything else that takes time. Typically what I do is get ideas from all over the place, and then research them.
Agreed. That is what a lot of these managers do. IMHO, they are more about asset class selection rather than "picking the best stocks". For some (i.e. Mutual Discovery), they are very defensive, and make good use of cash. But you have to be aware of that. They are rarely going to blow the doors off. First Eagle makes great use of gold and a global theme. IVY utilizes asset allocation, alternatives, currencies, etc. PIMCO TR uses bonds, currencies, shorts, intl bonds, pretty much everything other than equities. So you end up getting some of the best allocation strategies from some of the best managers out there.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.
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.
I disagree... according to you we could all use Putnam and do just as good..
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.
Yes, because asset allocation would have kept your clients' from losing money.
Interesting article:
http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/09_39/b4148078553973.htmI 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 ?
LOL I don't have one account that has a mutual fund in it. I do have several with UIT's. Why do you guys like MF's over UIT's ?Best Mutual Fund… isn’t that an oxymoron?
So because Putnam sucked the last ten years, asset allocation is not the primary driver of returns? Your post proves my point. Putnam at one time was considered one of the "best", now they are not.[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…
So because Putnam sucked the last ten years, asset allocation is not the primary driver of returns? Your post proves my point. Putnam at one time was considered one of the “best”, now they are not. [/quote]
Asset allocation is the primary driver of AVERAGE returns.
[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]
So because Putnam sucked the last ten years, asset allocation is not the primary driver of returns? Your post proves my point. Putnam at one time was considered one of the "best", now they are not. [/quote]
Asset allocation is the primary driver of AVERAGE returns.[/quote] Only if you suck at AA.
Really, how did asset allocation work out this last couple of years? Most asset classes become correlated in a down market.
Clients are up 1/1/08-today. Bear market missed them. Just because many (not all) asset classes went down together, does not mean that AA has failed. Sorry you could not join in tonight Ice, this post is more a response to the previous post.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.
All said in MVHO[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.
All said in MVHO[/quote]
I’m not doing quite as good as Gaddock, but as of COB yesterday, my worst client was up 17% from Q4 2007.
Once again, AA will not kill anybody, but it will garner AVERAGE returns.
[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.
All said in MVHO[/quote] What you are dong and what we are talking about are two different things. I'm not saying anything negative about what you do, just that grandpa and granny are unlikely to be trading options.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.
All said in MVHO[/quote] What you are dong and what we are talking about are two different things. I'm not saying anything negative about what you do, just that grandpa and granny are unlikely to be trading options.[/quote] I'm not saying anything negative about you. Was just suggesting an idea or two about how one may add alpha to their accounts. As for grandpa and granny they do and will once they are properly educated. Actually they are the best clients as they will also spend the day looking for trades that fit the model. My clients are working as a team for all of us.[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.
All said in MVHO[/quote]
I'm not doing quite as good as Gaddock, but as of COB yesterday, my worst client was up 17% from Q4 2007.
Once again, AA will not kill anybody, but it will garner AVERAGE returns.[/quote] I agree and That's AWESOME! would love to hear some of your better successes. I'm guessing it was not due in large part to MPT and or AA.
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.
[quote=Omar]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.
[/quote]
Omar I have used that fund a few times and I am happy with the results.
Omar and Noggin … How could you feel good about putting your clients money into a short term muni bond fund that has that kind of track record? Am I missing something - looks like alot better options out there.
[quote=voltmoie] Omar and Noggin … How could you feel good about putting your clients money into a short term muni bond fund that has that kind of track record? Am I missing something - looks like alot better options out there.
[/quote]
Volt, I haven’t and that’s why I’m asking.
Ice, couldn’t find this on their website - any idea what the sales charges / short term trading fees are for a C share? (being lazy, I know)
Excuse me it was the intermediate tax free that we used…
If a client needed money in the short term I would put half of their money in an A-share American fund and B-share Putnam fund, preferably something with a high exposure to financials.
If a client needed money in the short term I would put half of their money in an A-share American fund and B-share Putnam fund, preferably something with a high exposure to financials.
The LM Intermediate Muni C has no CDSC? I have so many clients looking to park cash money, and it's tough to recommend anything short term that doesn't have fees/commissions/CDSC or too much risk. It's a tough interest rate environment...Excuse me it was the intermediate tax free that we used…
That’s right. NO CDSC. I think it is up a little over 10% YTD.
It's a very tough interest rate enviroment....Clown.If a client needed money in the short term I would put half of their money in an A-share American fund and B-share Putnam fund, preferably something with a high exposure to financials.
Clown.[/quote][quote=SometimesNowhere]If a client needed money in the short term I would put half of their money in an A-share American fund and B-share Putnam fund, preferably something with a high exposure to financials.
[quote=iceco1d]
Take a look at Goldman Sachs Short-Duration Tax-Free Fund.
[/quote] This has a 1 year CDSC on the C right? Looking for something liquid, thanks for the advice though.[quote=noggin]That’s right. NO CDSC. I think it is up a little over 10% YTD.
It's a very tough interest rate enviroment....[/quote] That's good stuff, thanks.[quote=noggin]That’s right. NO CDSC. I think it is up a little over 10% YTD.
It's a very tough interest rate enviroment....[/quote] I checked it out - good stuff. I am actually looking at the short-dur fund, as there are virtually no volatility. The Intermediate Fund is better for a bit longer time horizon. The few clients I am referring to are looking for something that is as close to a replacement for MMKT as possible. I just have to check if it's AMT free (or close to it).[quote=voltmoie][quote=noggin]That’s right. NO CDSC. I think it is up a little over 10% YTD.
It's a very tough interest rate enviroment....[/quote] That's good stuff, thanks.[/quote] So now it's good stuff after you read me the riot act about performance?? No worries.......[quote=noggin][quote=voltmoie][quote=noggin]That’s right. NO CDSC. I think it is up a little over 10% YTD.
It's a very tough interest rate enviroment....[/quote] That's good stuff, thanks.[/quote] So now it's good stuff after you read me the riot act about performance?? No worries.......[/quote]No, the intermediate is good as is the short term muni. I was actually looking at the legg short term partners fund which lost 12% last year. Which is why I asked if I was missing something ... I was, the right fund!!!
The only issue I have is that it's mostly subject to AMT. I am looking into a Fidelity Advisor ST muni fund that is AMT-free.
I will use the LM fund for clients that are not subject to AMT. Unfortunately, most of my clients that want/need this type of fund are subject to AMT (clients with lots of excess income, and free cash getting nothing at the bank).
This kind of stuff is where this forum is really good. Sharing ideas to help each other help our clients…
Thanks!thanks to those that provided info on this subject. Very timely for me!
[quote=B24]
The only issue I have is that it's mostly subject to AMT. I am looking into a Fidelity Advisor ST muni fund that is AMT-free.
I will use the LM fund for clients that are not subject to AMT. Unfortunately, most of my clients that want/need this type of fund are subject to AMT (clients with lots of excess income, and free cash getting nothing at the bank).
[/quote] Did you look at the Thornburg?No, but I will. Thanks.
What have you guys been using for the core part of your client’s portfolios?
I personally like: AMF Capital Income Builder Ja*** Balanced Fund Fidelity Contrafund Fidelity Midcap T. Rowe Price Midcap Value T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Franklin Mutual Discovery I am not able to do fee based planning yet (due to tenure) at my insurance firm therefore I am stuck to selling loaded funds. I have been using those no-loaded funds and service class shares within variable annuities for clients. This thread has been extremely helpful so thanks to everyone who have contributed. I am looking for more loaded funds I can use for my clients that I can put a majority of their portfolio in. Thanks!Source URL:https://www.wealthmanagement.com/forums/general/best-mutual-funds