[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference nyoss1::market_investing

Title:	Market Investing

Moderator:	2155::michaud

Created:	Thu Jan 23 1992
Last Modified:	Thu Jun 05 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	1060
Total number of notes:	10477

50.0. "Equity fund rating" by EPOCH::JOHNSON (If we build it, they will come.) Mon Feb 10 1992 13:28

The latest issue of Business Week rated equity funds (about 700 of them, I
think) and I don't understand one of the columns and it isn't explained like
the others.

There's a column headed with "Return (%)" that I do understand, but to the
right of it is a column headed with "Yield" that I don't understand.

Can someone out there look at it in context and explain it?

Thanks,
Pete

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
50.1		SUBSYS::GANESH	Ganesh	`Mon Feb 10 1992 21:31`	4
	replied to .0 by mail.. this should be a nice opportunity to check if that "Businessweek cover" indicator really works ;-) - Ganesh.
50.2	Yield is	SICVAX::SWEENEY	Panic? Only in emergencies	`Mon Feb 10 1992 21:46`	3
	Total return in the sum of capital gains (or losses) and dividends. Yield is the amount paid in dividends/divided by the amount invested (at the market price).
50.3	BW's statistics poor?	MR4DEC::BMCWILLIAMS	Improvise if you have to ...	`Tue Feb 11 1992 10:17`	21
	Regarding Business Week's mutual fund surveys, I find a puzzling disparity between the ratings from last year and this year. For example, BW gives the "three up arrows" award to funds with superior "risk adjusted performance for the last five years." In 1991, 34 funds won that accolade; in 1992, 41 got 3 up arrows, and I'll bet that no more than half the funds in the 1991 list appear on the new list. As a specific example, the T. Rowe Price International Stock fund received 3 up arrows in last year's rating. This year, it's got a one down arrow rating! This change comes, I presume, from the fund's ho-hum 15.9% return in 1991. Anyone else notice this volatility in the BW ratings? Do Money magazine's ratings fluctuate so much from year to year? Kind of reminds me of Consumer Reports' auto ratings, in which the Dodge Omni was rated a top buy in 1981 or so, but a few years later CU strongly advised buyers to avoid it ... Brian
50.4	Other popular magazines that rate	SDSVAX::SWEENEY	Patrick Sweeney in New York	`Tue Feb 11 1992 23:44`	6
	Consumer Reports itself, one year rated mutual funds. Money does as you mentions. Others: Forbes, Barrons I believe that Forbes does the best job.
50.5		CHESS::KAIKOW		`Thu Feb 13 1992 06:03`	11
	I also noticed an inexplicable omission of some funds that were listed last year, even tho they state trhat they increased the number of funds covered this year. "Inconsistency" in ratings is in the eyes of the beholder. Remember, most of these ratings are automatically churned out by some computer, based on someone's underlying assumptions. I find the time periods used for the ratings to less than useful. Rating any fund over the crazy market we've had for the last 5 years or so is not a valid predictor of the future.
50.6		CHESS::KAIKOW		`Thu Feb 13 1992 06:05`	6
	re: 50.4 Also, Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine (used to be called Changing Times). I don't think much of Forbes ratings either. BW, Money and Kiplinger's give you nore info to look at, whatever you think of their ratings.
50.7	Don't forget Barron's	DNEAST::STEVENS_JIM		`Thu Feb 13 1992 10:49`	5
	This weeks Barron's had a complete pullout section on the past years/quarters MF performance.. Jim
50.8		SUBSYS::GANESH	Ganesh	`Fri Feb 14 1992 10:21`	11
	I, too, have lost my enthusiasm for the Forbes' ratings tables (after they unceremoniously trashed two or three funds that I'd have given far better grades). I don't really use anyone's "ratings tables" though. Forbes, as well as Barron's, do some great in-depth interviews with some of the lesser-known fund managers occasionally. I find these interviews useful to pick out the ones with the investment styles I'm comfortable with. - Ganesh.
50.9	put ratings in the trash!	CSC32::K_BOUCHARD	Ken Bouchard CXO3-2	`Fri May 01 1992 16:46`	12
	This is one reason why I cancelled my subscription to Money mag. and why I won't read other such magazines: Those mags. will all scream and shout about how good a particular fund is and we should all invest in it. Then,the next month ANOTHER ffund is touted and the first fund is never heard from again. I'm convinced that no ratings tables are worth even a second glance. Novices (like me) and experts (like you guys) should just pick a decent fund from a reputable fund family annd invest in it. Hopefully,over the long run,it'll perform. This is a better strategy than trying to guess who will do well based on somebody's ratings tables. Ken
50.10		VMSDEV::HAMMOND	Charlie Hammond -- ZKO3-04/S23 -- dtn 381-2684	`Fri May 01 1992 17:09`	26
	re: 50.9 > ... scream and > shout about how good a particular fund is and we should all invest in > it. Then,the next month ANOTHER fund is touted and the first fund is > never heard from again. I'm convinced that no ratings tables are worth > even a second glance. .. Well, that is one perspective. Here is another. What I try to do is to look for funds that show up as recommended in two or more different magazines/newsletters for two or more months in each. I then eliminate funds that are too agressive or too conservative, load funds, funds that aren't available in NH, funds that require a higher minimum than I have available, and any others that don't mesh well with my "investor profile". This leads to some dry spells -- it may be only a few times a year that I find a "new" fund to be interested in. But it seems that there is quite a bit of overlap between the funds you may see various persons "recommending" in this conference and the ones this approach finds. SO... I guess I agree that no rating table is worth a second glance for its individual merit, but I think that following a couple different sources over time can be beneficial.