There are plenty of funds that have between 25 and 33 percent of their assets in techs. Most people would be better off with that kind of aggressive growth fund,
Miller has an expansive view of value, to say the least.
Nobody ever wants to admit it. Investors should be aware of it.
One thing that's in the future is the technology revolution, ... But I can't think of any one thing that will drive the market higher.
Nobody who's following (Steadman) even with cursory diligence would have stayed with the funds, ... No-Load Fund Investor.
Nobody really wanted to come out with an index fund.
Nobody is going to be perfect. I would not a sell a fund with a good record just because it missed a hot sector.
Funds have been reporting big losses, so most investors won't have to worry about paying taxes on capital gains.
Funds close for two reasons. They've gotten too large or there's too much money flowing in.
The people that are still in (the Steadman funds) just are totally unaware. They are not following their investments, and that's the first rule of investing -- to follow it.
What we went through is a classic bubble. I don't think 2001 is going to be a fantastic year.
I think we'd be very fortunate in 2001 to get returns of 10 percent. Double-digit returns are a thing of the past.
Over the long run, they go up as far as growth stocks or growth funds, but they tend to do it with a little smoother ride, you don't have quite the same dips and valleys with the value.
Managers aren't doing the wrong things - the market has changed. I don't care how good a manager is - if the trend changes, he's going to look bad.
You may have missed the whole rally, but investors don't know you bought it three days before.
To me, it's more significant that he's in the lower rankings of performance for large blend funds, ... It's more fair to benchmark a fund to that fund's category, not an index.
Any fund that's heavy in technology has not done well.
A young person who doesn't need the money for years and years can be quite aggressive. If they're saving for a house they should probably be more conservative.
They say 'Most of the shareholders are in IRAs' and taxes aren't a factor in IRAs, ... They say 'I'm being paid on overall performance.'
They're not going to grow as fast as Janus (funds) would because there's no marketing behind it.
A balanced fund buys stocks and bonds, and when you put the two together it reduces volatility,
It's a fairly risky fund, but if you want to buy the stocks of the Nasdaq 100, that's a way to do it.
The numbers would have been a lot worse if it weren't for the turnaround in the last three months. The real losers of 2001 were big winners in the fourth quarter.
These things tend to be done out of weakness. I would tend to think the odds are in favor of these moves.
The larger fund groups all have research analysts. You can't just take what the company hands you.
If you have a long-term horizon, ... you can ride out any bear market and invest in standard growth funds.
If you're in your 20s, then you can be pretty aggressive, ... But if you're in the stage of life where you don't have many earning years left, there's a lot to commend in this portfolio.
If you want to spread your money around different fund groups this is a convenient way to do it. And if you want to move money from one fund into another, it's just one phone call.
The market is so efficient that the performance of a fund is determined by the niche it's in rather than who's managing it,