Blog

Make sure your mutual fund is tracking its index

This great entry from My Money Blog takes a hard look at the Fidelity U.S. Bond Index Fund (FBIDX).

When the author began reading Morningstar’s FBIDX Analyst Report, he was surprised to learn that his investment had not been tracking its index.

“Although this fund was designed to track the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, it lagged that bogy by more than 3 percentage points from mid-2007 through the end of 2008.

“Lagging a benchmark by 3 full percentage points is a lot in the index world. Passive investors want low costs and low tracking error from the target benchmark!

“It turns out that Fidelity had been making “modest” bets outside of the index in order to juice their returns, including minor exposure to subprime mortgages through an “ultra-short” bond portfolio*. FBIDX costs more than VBMFX by about 0.12% a year, so they would always lag if all other things were equal, and needed to take such additional risks in order to have better performance numbers.”

It’s hard to stay diligent when your investments are designed to track benchmarks that aren’t as widely visible as the DJIA or the S&P 500.

“So where’s a good place for those of us who don’t want to pay $200/year for Morningstar to find out that our bond funds may not be matching their index?”, asks a commenter.

LikeAssets is the perfect place for those wondering the same thing. It’s free to sign up, and uses the proper benchmark for every security, so it’s easy to tell if an index fund is missing its mark.

Read the article at My Money Blog »

04.07.2010 Permalink

REIT picks deliver more risk than return

In September 2009, real estate gurus Bob Steers and Marty Cohen recommended their top REIT picks in Forbes Magazine. Although the picks have since generated an excellent 34% return, LikeAssets shows that this was no better than the underlying REIT index ETF that an investor could have purchased and held with less risk.

Read the article from Forbes »
See the portfolio on LikeAssets »

Continue to the full post…
04.06.2010 Permalink

Dispelling myths of absolute-return investing

M. Barton Waring and Laurence B. Siegel take issue of the notion about “absolute return” investing, in their paper, The Myth of the Absolute-Return Investor. They review the problems with targeting absolute returns, examine their skepticism towards the practice, and explain the merits of benchmarks.

“Real added value comes only from relative-return investing.

“No wonder we could not sensibly define absolute-return investing: There is no such thing. The term is intended to capture investor attention by offering an intuitively appealing alternative to the disciplines required by relative-return invest- ing, but at the end of the day, it delivers beta returns plus or minus relative (alpha) returns. A sensible meaning for the term simply does not exist, unless one concedes that absolute return equals relative return, in which case there is no need for the term.

Continue to the full post…
04.05.2010 Permalink

Quality blue-chip stocks were late to rally

A Barron’s article from August 2009 noted that many quality blue-chip stocks were left behind in a rally. A dozen of these companies, including Wal-Mart, AT&T and Microsoft, were hand picked to potentially rise 20% over the next year.

LikeAssets shows that Barron’s was right on the money - these picks hit the estimated 20% return. The portfolio also handily outperformed its benchmark, which represented a blend of many asset classes, ranging from US Large Cap to International Equities.

Read the article from Barron’s »
See the portfolio in LikeAssets »

Continue to the full post…
04.04.2010 Permalink
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 Next »