Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What next, another thread about aches and paints?
The evils of technology?
Retiring overseas?
Social security will it be there?
Were things better back in the day?
Downsizing the house!
There are a handful of active managers whose performance exceeds the expectation of luck - but they don't appear to be "stock pickers" in the historic sense. They are algorithmic & high frequency traders who might buy & then sell the same stock thousands of times each second.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
i can dispute every point there with my own data and articles but i wont waste both our time since you are going to support your view and i will support my own view and performance.
Opinions of course are subjective, but what of simple, pat, numerical facts that are easily looked up? Having considerable respect for both of you gentlemen, to behold such blatant disagreement over said dry facts, is most discouraging.
Looking at plots provided by Yahoo Finance this past weekend, over the past 5 years, the S&P 500 has slightly outperformed the Contrafund (115% vs. 107% respectively). Since the late 1990s, which is the farthest back that I could find comparison-data, the S&P has risen around 400%, whereas the Conrafund has risen by 374%. These comparisons exclude dividends, and I do not know if they assume dividend-reinvestment. They clearly exclude taxes, which are going to hurt the actively managed fund (in a taxable account) owing to its higher turnover.
How do we square the above, with numbers on Contrafund posted by Mathjak? I have a conjecture, but before blurting it out, I invite other opinions....
Looking at plots provided by Yahoo Finance this past weekend, over the past 5 years, the S&P 500 has slightly outperformed the Contrafund (115% vs. 107% respectively). Since the late 1990s, which is the farthest back that I could find comparison-data, the S&P has risen around 400%, whereas the Conrafund has risen by 374%. These comparisons exclude dividends, and I do not know if they assume dividend-reinvestment. They clearly exclude taxes, which are going to hurt the actively managed fund (in a taxable account) owing to its higher turnover.
How do we square the above, with numbers on Contrafund posted by Mathjak? I have a conjecture, but before blurting it out, I invite other opinions....
You can get total-return performance charts free from Morningstar.
Using 1999 as the starting point, $10,000 in Contrafund has grown to $106,672, while the same amount in Vanguard's Index500 fund has grown to $57,432.
The three years refers to the section citing the loss of artic ice equates to the loss of the planet (that piece is overdue (thank God)).
Loss of arctic ice will not cause this - and the main source of this claim is a press conference - really? Since when is the President of Finland an academic source.
i can dispute every point there with my own data and articles
Clearly, you have yet to download let alone read any of the articles in my post. I invite you to do so - you're a smart guy, mathjak, and I think you would enjoy those articles.
You cannot find peer-reviewed, published academic, empirical studies based on actual share price data available from the famed Center for Research into Securities Prices (CRSP) at Chicago Booth, or from Computstat (now S&P Global Market Intelligence) that contradict what I wrote -- because the data are incontrovertible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
but i wont waste both our time since you are going to support your view and i will support my own view and performance.
I am not supporting my view. I am providing peer-reviewed academic, empirical studies. You are supporting your view, but I am reciting empirical studies that have withstood peer review among academics looking at the data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
actually old money is no different then new money in any fund. Each day we are buying in at that days price so to speak and going forward is the same gain or loss whether new or old on yesterday’s balance .
You missed my point. What I mean by "new money" is that it is unwise to put new cash into FCNTX in either a taxable or tax advantaged account, as there are alternatives that are much, much less expensive yet almost precisely mimic the FCNTX mutual fund in every way.
I contrast that with "old money" in a fund held in a taxable account - in order for an investor to switch "old money" out of the extremely expensive FCNTX into a much better ETF, the investor will incur a capital gains tax, and end up with less cash after tax. That is half the reason investors who have had money in FCNTX in taxable accounts for decades keep it there - the taxes to move to a better fund are onerous.
But even existing FCNTX investors can and should stop reinvesting in it and stop adding to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
me continuing to keep 500k in contra going forward is-no different than someone putting their 500k in today .
For you to withdraw your $500K in FCNTX in a taxable account and invest in a less expense/more tax efficient ETF, you would incur a significant capital gains tax bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
so time once again will show if contra is still a good deal but that logic you used is pretty flawed about new money being different than older money.
Incorrect. You just didn't understand my point in my original post. I hope the above makes it clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
i have contra in my ira
Since you have FCNTX in a tax advantaged account, you would not incur the capital gains tax of moving the money out of FCNTX into better ETFs. You should actually read the academic articles I posted. You should compare the portfolio characteristics of FCNTX to the two ETFs I mentioned (which are for all purposes effectively identical yet are not over-priced.) To refresh your memory:
Quote:
Even a simple 50/50 mix of the iShares S&P 500 Growth Index ETF (IVW) and the iShares Russell 1000 Growth Index ETF (IWF) replicates almost precisely the characteristics of the actively managed FCNTX (market cap characteristics, growth bias, domestic bias, momentum bias, balance sheet quality bias, beta, intra-day volatility, currency risk, sector risk, country risk, etc etc etc) at a much lower expense ratio of .18% and .19%, respectively, compared to the ridiculously high priced FCNTX at .89%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
go look at all the time frames the last 15 years for contra vs a total market fund and tell us which did better.
Go compare the overpriced, actively managed FCNTX with a .89% Expense Ratio to a simple 50/50 mix of the passively managed iShares S&P 500 Growth Index ETF (IVW) and the passively managed iShares Russell 1000 Growth Index ETF (IWF), with expense ratios of .18% and .19%, respectively.
They are effectively identical.
Think about it this way, mathjak: Let's say Fidelity contacted you & said, "We are starting a new fund that is effectively identical to FCNTX in every respect, but the new fund will have a competitive expense ratio of a mere .185%. Would you like to move your money to the new fund with no tax hit & at no cost to you?" How would you answer?
***
Look, you're a smart guy. You're a successful investor. I really do invite you to read those academic articles I cited; I think you would enjoy reading them in your spare time.
Do both include dividend reinvesting? If so, then I can not square these results with either Yahoo Finance or Rational Expectations' point.
yes they both do.all is reinvested
you can use portfolio visualizer….
my managed finds i have been using for decades have beaten both the s&p and total market ….
as i said , there are no equals since these funds hold private equity ….
what they would compare to as far as competitors would vary year to year as the holdings change plus why would i bother wasting time when already it has beaten the two most popular index funds out there , an s&p 500 and total market fund.
until these funds fail to perform they are my first choices in funds despite expenses
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
