Columbia & Van Kampen
35 RepliesJump to last post
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.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.
[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?