Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Value, Growth or "Core?"
Old 03-14-2007, 07:50 AM   #1
Moderator Emeritus
Rich_by_the_Bay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 8,827
Value, Growth or "Core?"

I've pretty much concluded as an investment novice that the definition of growth versus value investmentsis a pretty amorphous concept which even the experts disagree on. So, I just trust that whatever Vgd says it is, it is.

But recently I started prowling around Morningstar and see that in their style boxes ("x-rays") they use the term Core, too. It seems to be an intermediate style between the other two. Now I really can't figure out how I am weighted among the 3 styles.

Can anyone tell me what Core means? If I have say 33% of each of the 3 styles, am I neutral between growth and value?
__________________

__________________
Rich
San Francisco Area
ESR'd March 2010. FIRE'd January 2011.

As if you didn't know..If the above message contains medical content, it's NOT intended as advice, and may not be accurate, applicable or sufficient. Don't rely on it for any purpose. Consult your own doctor for all medical advice.
Rich_by_the_Bay is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"
Old 03-14-2007, 08:28 AM   #2
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
cute fuzzy bunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"

Sounds like a functional equivalent to "blend", although I dont know why they'd go off and make up their own thing...wha?..Oh yeah...nevermind...its boring to do things the way people are familiar with and you cant brand anything thats a common concept. :P
__________________

__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
cute fuzzy bunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"
Old 03-14-2007, 10:53 AM   #3
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 423
Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"

CFB is correct, they call blend "core" for some reason, in certain places. If you want to see the actual analysis of how they compute growth/blend/value, here is the explanation:

http://corporate.morningstar.com/US/...FactSheet_.pdf

Basically, a couple of weighted fundamental measures that you would expect, Earnings growth, book value, etc.
__________________
Olav23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"
Old 03-14-2007, 11:06 AM   #4
Moderator Emeritus
Rich_by_the_Bay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 8,827
Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olav23
If you want to see the actual analysis of how they compute growth/blend/value, here is the explanation:

http://corporate.morningstar.com/US/...FactSheet_.pdf
Thanks, Olav23. I'll read it over - probably just split the difference and allocate the Core holdings 50:50 to growth and value for simplicity -- never heard of a "core index fund."
__________________
Rich
San Francisco Area
ESR'd March 2010. FIRE'd January 2011.

As if you didn't know..If the above message contains medical content, it's NOT intended as advice, and may not be accurate, applicable or sufficient. Don't rely on it for any purpose. Consult your own doctor for all medical advice.
Rich_by_the_Bay is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"
Old 03-14-2007, 01:27 PM   #5
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 608
Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olav23
CFB is correct, they call blend "core" for some reason, in certain places. If you want to see the actual analysis of how they compute growth/blend/value, here is the explanation:

http://corporate.morningstar.com/US/...FactSheet_.pdf
From my reading, it doesn't so much look like they're synonymous as that the term
"blend" is used for a fund and "core" for a stock. But I'd agree that it seems like if
you're trying to compute your split that "core" stocks should be labeled "blend" to
make the value/blend/growth ratios come out right.

__________________
JohnEyles is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"
Old 03-14-2007, 02:20 PM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,862
Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"

Morningstar "core" stocks or funds are ones that could be relied upon to form the core of your portfolio. Probably the slower moving, wider "moat" stocks among those they like. The style box classification is entirely different, though it is likely that core stocks and funds will be more large cap S&P500 oriented. It is not an indicator of the blend style.

Dan
__________________
Animorph is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"
Old 03-14-2007, 03:15 PM   #7
Moderator Emeritus
Rich_by_the_Bay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 8,827
Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Animorph
Morningstar "core" stocks or funds are ones that could be relied upon to form the core of your portfolio. Probably the slower moving, wider "moat" stocks among those they like. The style box classification is entirely different, though it is likely that core stocks and funds will be more large cap S&P500 oriented. It is not an indicator of the blend style.
Dan, that's not consistent with my read of the article referenced above by Olav23. Where did you get this information from?

Even Vgd small cap index has 20% Core per Morningstar. Sounds like it means blend indeed, as applied to a fund.
__________________
Rich
San Francisco Area
ESR'd March 2010. FIRE'd January 2011.

As if you didn't know..If the above message contains medical content, it's NOT intended as advice, and may not be accurate, applicable or sufficient. Don't rely on it for any purpose. Consult your own doctor for all medical advice.
Rich_by_the_Bay is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"
Old 03-14-2007, 03:57 PM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
saluki9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,032
Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"

From a portfolio management standpoint core can mean both "a core holding" or describe a stock that is not clearly growth or value.

This for example explains why the Russell indexes (growth & Value) have some overlap, because many companies aren't growth or value.

__________________
saluki9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"
Old 03-14-2007, 04:05 PM   #9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,862
Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"

Weird, never seen them use it that way before! Been a while since I worried about individual stocks much I guess. Indeed, if you look at the premium stock screener, "core" replaces "blend" for the middle column of the style box in the possible style selections. So for individual stocks, "core" is a stock in between growth and value, and may be large, mid, or small cap.

I was thinking about their designation of "core" funds in particular, the heart of the portfolio. As in:
"Role in Portfolio
A guide to assist with portfolio allocation, funds can be designated core, supporting player or specialty. Core funds should be the bulk of an investor's portfolio, while supporting players contribute to a portfolio, but are secondary to the core. Specialty offerings tend to be speculative, and should typically only be a small portion of investors' portfolios."

Dan

__________________
Animorph is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"
Old 03-14-2007, 05:26 PM   #10
Moderator Emeritus
Rich_by_the_Bay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 8,827
Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by saluki9
From a portfolio management standpoint core can mean both "a core holding" or describe a stock that is not clearly growth or value.
Thanks, Saluki. That's what I inferred.

Since many investors just want to balance "growth and value" how would you handle "Core" style holdings in designing your allocation from this standpoint. I'm inclined to just ignore Core and look at the other two. Reasonable?
__________________
Rich
San Francisco Area
ESR'd March 2010. FIRE'd January 2011.

As if you didn't know..If the above message contains medical content, it's NOT intended as advice, and may not be accurate, applicable or sufficient. Don't rely on it for any purpose. Consult your own doctor for all medical advice.
Rich_by_the_Bay is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"
Old 03-14-2007, 09:02 PM   #11
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
cute fuzzy bunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
Re: Value, Growth or "Core?"

Slicing it that thinly, its entirely likely that a good size chunk of 'core' stocks, those neither clearly value or growth...become one or the other in fairly short order...
__________________

__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
cute fuzzy bunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to determine projected annual real growth of capital? Dude FIRE and Money 8 02-04-2007 02:38 PM
Wage growth just_hatched FIRE and Money 9 03-11-2006 11:59 PM
GE Forecasts Double Digit Growth in '06 after Record '05 Gone4Good FIRE and Money 0 12-17-2005 10:17 AM
Forbes -- Growth in Health Ins. Premiums Slows intercst FIRE and Money 6 09-15-2005 02:37 PM
Natural Limits to Healthcare Expense Growth? haha FIRE and Money 84 06-11-2005 06:59 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:47 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.