Columbia & Van Kampen
Any concerns about either of these shops being sold?
Don’t use, and don’t use. Soooo, no.
Honestly, most of the time fund companies are not affected much by being sold/bought. They are typically, though not always, left to operate autonomously.Columbia was bought by Ameriprise like 2 or 3 weeks ago.
If you still use VanKampen, you should look for someone else to manage YOUR money
One of my biggest regrets since entering the biz in early '06: Listening to the Van Kampen wholesaler who was telling us Comstock was one of the best Large Cap funds on the street. I hawked the hell out of that fund last year and early '07. I hate myself for it. One of the reasons I don't listen to newbies on here who have opinions on certain investments because I was the biggest idiot a few years ago when I was a newbie for listening to the wrong people with this horrible, horrible fund family.If you still use VanKampen, you should look for someone else to manage YOUR money
I think anyone who claims one fund company is better than others is kidding themselves… Example: Franklin Templeton is good at fixed income and specifically Int’l. However the rest of their funds are a waste.
I like fund companies that have 2-5 funds…example: First Eagle, Fairholme, CGM, Permanent Funds.
But I understand the predicament some of you are in with breakpoints and preferred funds
And thats one thing I didn’t learn until about a year or so in the biz, unfortunately. And its also one of the reasons I HATE it when advisors put clients in A share portfolios now, because you just know that there are at least a few sectors that are missing out on opportunity (Ex. American Funds - Nice w/Large cap and bonds, but sh!tty with international, mid cap, small cap, etc.) You can’t be tactical w/A share portfolios. I agree w/you Squash, find the few fund companies that have excellent specialties and use the hell out of those funds.
Squash, you nailed it. You haev to take the best of each fund family, which is why I hate A-shares. And the reason Franklin is any good with as many funds as they have, is because they are really three different families (Franklin, Templeton, Mutual Series). I will say, Mutual Series has some really good deep-value funds (Mutual Discovery is my favorite).
Comstock was a great fund…until they dumped energy 2 years before the peak. Wholesalers kind of chuckled about it and shrugged it off as a bad call. What did they allocate that money to? Banks. Nice move. That’s what killed Comstock. Two stupid big moves will kill any fund.
It was a great conservative fund until that point. Throw out 05-07 and it's still a great fund. With that said, I don't use any Van Kampen to speak of. They do have new target date funds which I think are interesting, but only because Van Kampen doesn't manage the majority of the money.I agree with your premise, but I disagree on your AMF details. I think they are good with LC Value, VERY good with international value (not growth), and adequate with fixed income. Everything else is either sub-par or slightly below adequate.And thats one thing I didn’t learn until about a year or so in the biz, unfortunately. And its also one of the reasons I HATE it when advisors put clients in A share portfolios now, because you just know that there are at least a few sectors that are missing out on opportunity (Ex. American Funds - Nice w/Large cap and bonds, but sh!tty with international, mid cap, small cap, etc.) You can’t be tactical w/A share portfolios. I agree w/you Squash, find the few fund companies that have excellent specialties and use the hell out of those funds.
I agree with your premise, but I disagree on your AMF details. I think they are good with LC Value, VERY good with international value (not growth), and adequate with fixed income. Everything else is either sub-par or slightly below adequate.[/quote] Good point, I probably gave them too much credit on their good areas, but just wanted to point out an example of a fund company that is good in some areas and bad in some areas. Should have just mentioned they're good for the value investor but those looking for growth oriented ones should avoid them.[quote=3rdyrp2]And thats one thing I didn’t learn until about a year or so in the biz, unfortunately. And its also one of the reasons I HATE it when advisors put clients in A share portfolios now, because you just know that there are at least a few sectors that are missing out on opportunity (Ex. American Funds - Nice w/Large cap and bonds, but sh!tty with international, mid cap, small cap, etc.) You can’t be tactical w/A share portfolios. I agree w/you Squash, find the few fund companies that have excellent specialties and use the hell out of those funds.
[quote=B24] Squash, you nailed it. You haev to take the best of each fund family, which is why I hate A-shares. And the reason Franklin is any good with as many funds as they have, is because they are really three different families (Franklin, Templeton, Mutual Series). I will say, Mutual Series has some really good deep-value funds (Mutual Discovery is my favorite).
I think First Eagle Global is a better alternative.
[quote=chief123] [quote=B24] Squash, you nailed it. You haev to take the best of each fund family, which is why I hate A-shares. And the reason Franklin is any good with as many funds as they have, is because they are really three different families (Franklin, Templeton, Mutual Series). I will say, Mutual Series has some really good deep-value funds (Mutual Discovery is my favorite).
I think First Eagle Global is a better alternative.[/quote] Except for the portfolio manager turnover question.
Are you referring to Evilard leaving(again)… The main analyst is still there and Jean Marie is but a phone call away… The fund has been doing well.(I always compare to Blackrock GLobal).
But you are right we will have to see if the new guy can put up Evilard numbers
Are you referring to Evilard new york asian escort leaving(again)… The main analyst is still
there new york asian escorts and Jean Marie is but a phone call new york escort away… The fund has been doing
well.(I always compare to Blackrock GLobal).
But you are right we will have to new york escorts see if the new guy can put up Evilard numbers
To bring this thing back to the original question - VK is going to be purchased by Invesco. Got notification today on our intranet.
That came out 2 days ago… Joogle is behind
Just like everything else, evidently.
[quote=noggin][quote=chief123] [quote=B24] Squash, you nailed it. You haev to take the best of each fund family, which is why I hate A-shares. And the reason Franklin is any good with as many funds as they have, is because they are really three different families (Franklin, Templeton, Mutual Series). I will say, Mutual Series has some really good deep-value funds (Mutual Discovery is my favorite).
I think First Eagle Global is a better alternative.[/quote] Except for the portfolio manager turnover question.[/quote] I agree. That's why I use First Eagle all the time. I use Mutual Discovery for FT A share portfolios. I am also concerned about the JME turnover, but JME has been in and out for several years, and he's got two very capable managers that have been working with him for years. His style was never about "big calls", it was more about asset allocation and a bottoms-up approach. Other than gold, there are rarely any big bets. However, a wrong call on gold down the line could be costly. But they are a such a good gold house, I would trust them over anyone. I like that they only have a few funds - but is really just a few themes - gold, and global value. Yes, they have a domestic value fund (2), an international value fund, and a global fund, but if you look at the overlap, it's mostly the same theme. I don't see them getting it wrong very often, even with JME gone.
Just like everything else, evidently.
Are the still on the preferred list still?
That came out 2 days ago… Joogle is behind
[quote=chief123] [quote=Spaceman Spiff]
Just like everything else, evidently.
[/quote]Are the still on the preferred list still?[/quote] Yep. Well, the WSJ just reported it yesterday. We got the email this morning, which means that someone at HQ knew about it yesterday so they could put it in the Uptick for delivery this morning. Had I been here last night later than 4:30, I would have known about it when that email actually got delivered. Had I cared enough to look for it, there was evidently something on our mutual fund page yesterday that told us about the deal. So, Joogle wasn't behind, just the flow of info to the FA was. Our sources were as well and as timely informed as the WSJ, so that's actually not too bad. I didn't, however, get my personal email from Tom Miltenberger letting me know what was going on. Strange.
You guys couldn’t be more wrong about Comstock. Bob Baker is a long term contrarian pimp. Granted, he’s on a 6 month cebatical. Nontheless, the fund has killed it in the worst decade in market history. As normalization in the market has returned, the fund is top 30% the last year and better than 17% ten years. Don’t let a bad year dictate your long-term investment decisions. Your should say thank you to your wholesaler at VK for having you load up on Comstock.
Baker is gone. Can you define killed it for me…?
Van Kampen Comstock: 3 year trailing return - -5.97% 5 year trailing return - +1.39% BlackRock Equity Dividend: 3 year trailing return - -1.66% 5 year trailing return - +5.93% Riversource Diversified Equity Income: 3 year trailing return - -5.59% 5 year trailing return - +4.47% Eaton Vance Large Cap Value: 3 year trailing return - -4.88% 5 year trailing return - +3.96% These were just the 1st three examples of large value funds I thought of, and they each beat Comstock pretty badly. Comstock is beating them all in 2009 YTD return basically because most of the investments they were wrong on in '07 and '08 are making up more of the ground they lost the past couple of years. The other funds didn't have as much ground to make up. Come to think of it I should have invested a ton of folks in Comstock in January of this year!You guys couldn’t be more wrong about Comstock. Bob Baker is a long term contrarian pimp. Granted, he’s on a 6 month cebatical. Nontheless, the fund has killed it in the worst decade in market history. As normalization in the market has returned, the fund is top 30% the last year and better than 17% ten years. Don’t let a bad year dictate your long-term investment decisions. Your should say thank you to your wholesaler at VK for having you load up on Comstock.
He got canned late last year. Not sure the gesture would be as appreciated on his end.You should say thank you to your wholesaler at VK for having you load up on Comstock.
Just on Jones' Preferred Fund list of Domestic G&I Funds, there are 13 funds with better 3 year numbers, 14 funds with better 5 yr numbers, and 6 Funds with better 10 yr. numbers (I didn't know Jones even had that many G&I funds on their list??). Hey, their 15-year number and their 1-year numbers are pretty good. It's just everything in-between that's sucked. I guess market-timing works . Rank, hopefully, you have just been drinking. I usually like your commentary.You guys couldn’t be more wrong about Comstock. Bob Baker is a long term contrarian pimp. Granted, he’s on a 6 month cebatical. Nontheless, the fund has killed it in the worst decade in market history. As normalization in the market has returned, the fund is top 30% the last year and better than 17% ten years. Don’t let a bad year dictate your long-term investment decisions. Your should say thank you to your wholesaler at VK for having you load up on Comstock.
Throw out 05-07 and Comstock would be a top decile fund over every time period. Like I said before they made a bad call on dumping energy early and then loading up on banks. Their 15 year number is phenomenal. Just under 10% with two big bear markets and their sub par performance 05-07.
Rank, I'm going to guess your a long time Comstock fan. Most Jones FAs that have been around a while are. Those of us who haven't been in the business that long haven't seen Comstock at the top of any list of great funds to own. You may be right that it's a great fund, but they're really out of favor right now. And they did it to themselves. Hopefully they can make a comeback and get back to their great long term successes. In the meantime, we're probably going to see a lot of money that, 10 years ago, would have gone to VK go to places like Oppenheimer or Hartford or FT.[quote=Spaceman Spiff]
Throw out 05-07 and Comstock would be a top decile fund over every time period. Like I said before they made a bad call on dumping energy early and then loading up on banks. Their 15 year number is phenomenal. Just under 10% with two big bear markets and their sub par performance 05-07.
Rank, I'm going to guess your a long time Comstock fan. Most Jones FAs that have been around a while are. Those of us who haven't been in the business that long haven't seen Comstock at the top of any list of great funds to own. You may be right that it's a great fund, but they're really out of favor right now. And they did it to themselves. Hopefully they can make a comeback and get back to their great long term successes. In the meantime, we're probably going to see a lot of money that, 10 years ago, would have gone to VK go to places like Oppenheimer or Hartford or FT. [/quote] Not to beat a dead horse, but, if you throw out 05-07 there are a tremendous amount of funds that would be top decile over all time periods.[quote=noggin] [quote=Spaceman Spiff]
Throw out 05-07 and Comstock would be a top decile fund over every time period. Like I said before they made a bad call on dumping energy early and then loading up on banks. Their 15 year number is phenomenal. Just under 10% with two big bear markets and their sub par performance 05-07.
Rank, I’m going to guess your a long time Comstock fan. Most Jones FAs that have been around a while are. Those of us who haven’t been in the business that long haven’t seen Comstock at the top of any list of great funds to own. You may be right that it’s a great fund, but they’re really out of favor right now. And they did it to themselves. Hopefully they can make a comeback and get back to their great long term successes. In the meantime, we’re probably going to see a lot of money that, 10 years ago, would have gone to VK go to places like Oppenheimer or Hartford or FT. [/quote]
Not to beat a dead horse, but, if you throw out 05-07 there are a tremendous amount of funds that would be top decile over all time periods. [/quote]
Yeah no kidding “This would be a top tier fund if you threw out all the bad years and the fund manager and replaced it with whatever numbers look good”
<SPAN id=userPro163471 =msgSidePro title=“View Drop Down” =“showDropDown’userPro163471’, ‘proMenu163471’, 160, 0;”>3rdyrp2, why don’t you show the 1 or 10 year numbers on those funds compared to Comstock, or maybe 15? Who really cares how a fund has underperformed or outperformed on a 1 or 3 year period. 5-10-15 year periods are where you should look. Anyone can find a fund that has beaten another fund over a 3 or 5 year period, hindsite is 20-20. The key is where is a fund going, what is the investment strategy, and how poised is the investment managment. Why do you think investing in 1-star funds at the start of each year has outperformed investing in 5-star funds at the start of each year? I define “killing it” over a 10 year period as being in the top quartile. By the way, please name a fund that has been in the top quartile every year for the last 10-years…I’d really like to know if one exists…because I’ve never seen one.
Where do you go to find quartile rankings?
And do you go by Lipper or Morningstar for fund category…? Not being critical honestly asking…
It’s 10 year Std Dev is through the roof. The thing has had some odd ups and downs, and is definitely a “contrarian” fund. But it is NOT for the faint of heart. That thing is all over the palce. Reminds me of a Putnam fund.
For my money and my client’s I feel a lot more comfortable with something very similiar but better in my mind. I like MFS Value over Comstock…Std Dev much much lower over the last 10 years, beta 10% lower over last 10 years. MFS Value is a top quartile performer over the last 3,5 and 10 years, Comstock is only a top quartile over the last 10 years. The real interesting things is that over the last 10 years, 16.5% capital gains for MFS Value imbedded in performance and 31.8% capital gains imbedded in performance for Comstock.
Alphas are very different as well, MFS value has a positive one and Comstock is negative....Source URL:https://www.wealthmanagement.com/forums/general/columbia-van-kampen