Putnam Funds
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.
I bet Fes is pissed!!
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.
When will they dump Hartford? Or do they still pay top dollar for shelf space?
[quote=Philo Kvetch]When will they dump Hartford? Or do they still pay top dollar for shelf space?[/quote]
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.
In all fairness Ferris, they sucked before the bad press as well.
Glad to see them removed. Hopefully it won’t take as long the next time one starts to spiral downward.
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.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.
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.
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....).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.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.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.
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?
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.)
So Philo…do you charge a management fee? If not what is your method for getting paid?
Are you in the brokerage business, Eyetattoo? If so, then you should know how brokers get paid. I don’t do anything different.
You find mutual fund fees unconscionable? Is it the sales charge or expense ratio? What do you use instead? Just wondering//
surely if you find mutual funds fees unconscionable, you must manage money for free.
[quote=ezmoney]
surely if you find mutual funds fees unconscionable, you must manage money for free.
[/quote] Yeah EZ, haven't you heard? There's a group called "Brokers Without Borders" and they'll manage your money for free.[quote=ezmoney]
surely if you find mutual funds fees unconscionable, you must manage money for free.
[/quote] By your logic, if one doesn't use mutual funds or charge a fee, one must be working free of charge. I don't know where you were educated, but you should get your money back. It clearly didn't work.Do you plan on answering my question? If not, just say so.
Anybody thought of individual stock and bond broker? It’s old school, but can still be done.
It's the sales charge AND the expenses. It was different in the day when one fund could clearly be superior to another, but today one fund manager knows nothing that the others don't know. Of course, there was a time when mutual funds paid 8%.You find mutual fund fees unconscionable? Is it the sales charge or expense ratio? What do you use instead? Just wondering//
[quote=Eyetattoo]So Philo…do you charge a management fee? If not what is your method for getting paid?
[/quote]
[quote=Philo Kvetch]Are you in the brokerage business, Eyetattoo? If
so, then you should know how brokers get paid. I don’t do anything
different.
In a different thread few months back philo said his company charges a management fee because its in the best interest of his clients. Looks like he has reached "yoda " level since then, he speaks in riddles which either makes him a genius or an idiot. I vote for idiot based on most of his other posts, he had his ass handed to him while debating devils advocate/putsy, which is why he keeps his post to one or two sentences now.
[quote=Philo Kvetch]Are you in the brokerage business, Eyetattoo? If so, then you should know how brokers get paid. I don’t do anything different.
[/quote]Well you either charge a management fee or not .....so how about you answer the question smart guy.And yes Im in the business.
[quote=Eyetattoo] [quote=Philo Kvetch]Are you in the brokerage business, Eyetattoo? If so, then you should know how brokers get paid. I don’t do anything different.
[/quote]Well you either charge a management fee or not .....so how about you answer the question smart guy.And yes Im in the business.
[/quote] Well, then, you should know how brokers are compensated. Why is how I'm paid of so much interest to some of you? I'm clearly superior to many of you, but how can knowing how I'm paid make you a better person?
boy you’re soooo much better than us, and obviously very self absorbed. Commissions are fees also idiot.
Hey, you're the one that took us off on this tangent. I've just pointed out the very obvious. Commissions are commissions and fees are fees. There is a difference...call FINRA or the SEC if you don't believe me.boy you’re soooo much better than us, and obviously very self absorbed. Commissions are fees also idiot.
they both incent the advisor to do things
And that makes them the same thing? I can't follow your reasoning here, Ezmoney. Can you?they both incent the advisor to do things
you never answered the question. how are you compensated to manage assets?
And just why is that of any concern to you?you never answered the question. how are you compensated to manage assets?
And MY Dad can beat up YOUR Dad!
Philo is just trying to make you all look like idiots - and it's working! We all know all the ways we can get paid. Philo is just having fun at your expense, and laying it out for you would ruin his fun!Putnam number 1 in Barrons for 2009. Bob Reynolds (former fidelity executive) turning it around.
Do you work for them or something? This thread is 3 years old! Seriously though, I would not want to focus on the best fund family of 2009.
Putnam needs 10 years of solid, improved results before they have any serious turnaround. Although I think they are moving in the right direction. They might be building a niche for themselves with some fo the new products they have rolled out.
Another Boglehead with a firm grasp of investing. THX for making our point.
Source URL:https://www.wealthmanagement.com/forums/general/putnam-funds