Compare funds in the Fidelity mutual fund compare tool to see the adjusted gains over various periods.
Yep, you gotta know bad data and charting when you see it or you will end up buying funds like TICRX.
The solution to being unable to break things down so a novice could understand is to either learn to do so or avoid dealing with novices, not being an ass.
But one thing is for sure: If you're considering adding a fund to your portfolio--or heavily bulking up an existing position--and a fund is forecasting a large capital gains distribution, consider holding off on your new purchase until the distribution has already occurred. Otherwise, you'll be paying taxes on gains that you weren't on board to enjoy.
Boho, if you are comparing funds like this (comparing their performance over 5 year periods, etc) and trying to decide which to buy based on that, you are unlikely to get a good result. I say this as someone who used to do the same thing. Or, I'd look at Consumer Reports, which took the same approach. The market conditions during those 5 year periods were different enough that the performance differences are based strictly on the type of funds each of these are, rather than any inherent stockpicking skills of the managers.I just used Fidelity's compare tool to compare the adjusted gains for TICRX with the S&P from 2007 to the present and TICRX outperforms the S&P from 2007 to 2012 while the S&P outperforms from 2012 to present. From 2007 to present, the S&P outperformed by...I think it's 1%.
Editorial comment: When we invest in a "socially responsible" fund, we will be paying a higher management fee than if we bought an index fund. They will, in general, underperform the index fund (due to these costs, and due to the requirement that they may have to disregard some well-performing stocks). The "socially irresponsible" stocks you didn't buy will be bought by somebody else (maybe me!), hardly affecting the price of these stocks. In aggregate, we can do our "causes" more good by just investing for maximum risk-adjusted returns and donating funds to the causes we support.It was one of the best socially responsible funds I found.
+1. A very good book.Boo, I recommend The Bogleheads Guide to Investing. A good intro into the low cost index investing style.
Editorial comment: When we invest in a "socially responsible" fund, we will be paying a higher management fee than if we bought an index fund. They will, in general, underperform the index fund (due to these costs, and due to the requirement that they may have to disregard some well-performing stocks). The "socially irresponsible" stocks you didn't buy will be bought by somebody else (maybe me!), hardly affecting the price of these stocks. In aggregate, we can do our "causes" more good by just investing for maximum risk-adjusted returns and donating funds to the causes we support.
+1. A very good book.
Boho, if you are comparing funds like this (comparing their performance over 5 year periods, etc) and trying to decide which to buy based on that, you are unlikely to get a good result. I say this as someone who used to do the same thing. Or, I'd look at Consumer Reports, which took the same approach.
The market conditions during those 5 year periods were different enough that the performance differences are based strictly on the type of funds each of these are, rather than any inherent stockpicking skills of the managers.
Editorial comment: When we invest in a "socially responsible" fund, we will be paying a higher management fee than if we bought an index fund. They will, in general, underperform the index fund (due to these costs, and due to the requirement that they may have to disregard some well-performing stocks).
The "socially irresponsible" stocks you didn't buy will be bought by somebody else (maybe me!), hardly affecting the price of these stocks. In aggregate, we can do our "causes" more good by just investing for maximum risk-adjusted returns and donating funds to the causes we support.
+1. A very good book.
I don't try very hard to talk people out of "socially conscious" investing. It makes them feel good (which is nice) and when they go that route it actually benefits me:I don't question the wish to purchase socially responsible funds, although the warning on underperformance is pertinent.
Personally, I don't buy tobacco, liquor, or "defense" stocks in the stock portfolio, although I wouldn't tell others they have to copy my behavior and I'm willing to tolerate it in broad-based mutual funds (so I'm a hypocrite).
I'm pretty sure Altria (aka Phillip Morris) isn't materially affected if I don't invest in their stock. But, $10K invested in their stock 10 years ago would be worth about $60K today, compared to $20K if invested in the S&P 500. Altria >would< be considerably affected if I and other owners of their stock sent that delta, $40K, to support the efforts of antismoking groups, to fund antismoking efforts in foreign countries, to fund investigative reporting about how they market their product (esp overseas) and how they buy political influence in many countries. That would hurt them. Even just my $40K could go a long way in a country like the Philippines to reduce Altria's (and other company's) revenues and directly hurt the company (while helping those addicted to tobacco). I like the idea of using any ill-gotten profits against a company, and believe it would be a more effective strategy than just avoiding the stock (if a person wants to do good rather than just feel good). Influencing the stock price of a company is a very indirect and inefficient means of "hurting" the company. Reducing their revenues (reduced tobacco sales) and especially profits (highlighting legislative sweetheart deals that keep cigarette prices high) are much more effective.Donating, however, (at least to ease your conscience) is a bit like buying a papal bull in the medieval period or maybe bribing your undertaker.
One timeframe. One unique set of market conditions. Scores of "socially responsible" funds and you cherry-picked one that, retrospectively, did better than one particular market index. Most "socially responsible" funds didn't outperform broad market indices. Most active funds don't, either, despite their best research and efforts. Buying the best performing active fund of the previous time period (1,5,10 years) is a virtually certain ticket to disappointing future returns.In the case of what I bought, it seems to perform better than the S&P. See this. I bought an index fund and now I have second thoughts because this socially responsible fund seems to perform better.
The book you bought, "A Random Walk . . .', is a true classic. From your posts, it's obvious that the points the book makes (which are excellent) have not made an impact on your thinking or behavior. You apparently feel you "get it", but you do not. Spend some time with it and I think you'll really benefit. Monkeys, darts--Malkiel has put it all right there, and it's true. The points he makes have been repeatedly proven in the decades since the first edition was published. You'll save a >ton< of money if you take that book to heart, and then look to "A Bogleheads Guide to Investing" for the brass tacks of how to implement this philosophy. Don't be impatient to make investments right now, take a few weeks to build a foundation for a lifetime of decisionmaking and action.I bought one though. A Random Walk Down Wall Street. But I feel like I get the point without even opening it.
You apparently feel you "get it", but you do not. Spend some time with it and I think you'll really benefit. Monkeys, darts--Malkiel has put it all right there, and it's true.
Managers Todd Ahlsten and Benjamin Allen run screens to eliminate companies with significant revenue streams from tobacco, alcohol, weapons and gambling. On the positive side, they look for strong corporate governance and qualitative factors such as relationships with customers, vendors and employees.
The fund was established in 1992. Over the long term, the socially responsible growth strategy has returned more than the S&P 500. However, shorter time periods are generally more relevant to investors because there are likely very few who have held the fund for more than two decades.
Over the past 10 years, the fund returned two percentage points more than the benchmark.
Morningstar tracks the fund within its Large Blend category. On a 10-year basis, the fund handily outpaced its category average, and ranks second within that classification.
The fund has returned 14.16 percent over the past five years and 9.38 percent over the past decade.
I won't blindly favor broad market index funds over other funds....
It's an expensive way to learn, but some people will have it no other way. It took me a while to realize that selecting a mutual fund was entirely unlike buying a car or a toaster, and to admit that, while some managers might outperform for awhile, it was not possible to reliably find them in advance. That is a tough pill, and so different from other products we buy that I'm not surprised people reject the idea---at first.I'm waiting for when after you've exhausted the other avenues, when you'll throw in the towel and say this indexing thing isn't so bad! Skeptics make the best believers ... in time.
It's an expensive way to learn, but some people will have it no other way. It took me a while to realize that selecting a mutual fund was entirely unlike buying a car or a toaster, and to admit that, while some managers might outperform for awhile, it was not possible to reliably find them in advance. That is a tough pill, and so different from other products we buy that I'm not surprised people reject the idea---at first.
Lower than what?I do this so I can get an idea of whether a price is low for a random reason.
Lower than what?