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.
If you are a long term investor, stocks will always outperform bonds. If you are NOT in it for the long term, I would stay out of the stock market. There are good no load funds and good loaded funds. It is all about your objectives and their long term performance. Expenses are just one criteria for making a well informed mutual fund choice.
I have EuroPacific Growth (cheap R5 share class). It got trounced in 2008, but was in the 11th percentile in terms of performance. It has bounced back this year and is in the top 15% year to date, but far from making up last year's losses.
I also have Growth Fund of America A. That one got hit pretty hard last year and has bounced back this year...but same story, the bounce hasn't made up for the losses. It was around 35th percentile last year and around the same this year...not top notch, but consistently decent compared with other funds in its category.
How long have you owned AF's. Have you sold any?
Also all my Roth IRA funds are AF's. Good decision?
AF are top notch funds along with Vanguard and T. Rowe Price. Its the big 3.
What's your definition of "top notch?" Vanguard, for example, has some good funds and a lot of mediocre ones. Their biggest claim to fame is--say it all together now--low expenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhtrico1850
On Scottrade, I can filter mutual funds by TNA (total net assets)...
Pimco Total Return has got more total net assets than anyone else (most popular mutual fund?)...
This is the biggest mutual fund, so therefore, the largest bond fund...
This is the second largest mutual fund and the largest stock fund...
Not sure why you're focusing on size. All else being equal, I'd rather go with a smaller fund than a huge one. When funds become too large, that can make things difficult for the fund manager.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger
I agree with you. But some of us (like me) can get American Funds via our employer sponsored retirement plans, so we don't have to pay the load.
Yeah, that's a different story. Fortunately, 401ks do typically waive the loads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by debtmonger
If you are a long term investor, stocks will always outperform bonds.
Have to be careful here as many would consider 10 years "long term." As pointed out, bonds can outperform for very long stretches. But I agree with your point--stocks will usually outperform bonds over the long term, depending on the timing and how long the term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by debtmonger
There are good no load funds and good loaded funds. It is all about your objectives and their long term performance. Expenses are just one criteria for making a well informed mutual fund choice.
Again, I agree, but it's an important criteria, IMO, as it directly affects returns. Given the difficulty that mutual funds in general have in beating the market and escaping mediocrity, you want to give yourself every advantage possible. Paying a big load puts you at an immediate disadvantage. Now, if you find a load fund that has performed very well over a long period of time and you believe that's due to the skill of the current manager, and after scouring the fund universe you cannot find a no-load fund that's somewhat comparable, THEN maybe it's worth paying the load. But that's typically not the case when folks are shelling out bucks for load funds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas User
You also have a professional money manager managing your funds on a daily basis. Asset Allocation etc.
You mean the salesperson at the brokerage? Are you sure that he is more interested in providing good guidance (and capable of doing so) than lining his own pockets? Are you aware of the inherent conflicts of interest, etc.?
How long have you owned AF's. Have you sold any?
Also all my Roth IRA funds are AF's. Good decision?
I've had Growth Fund of America for quite a few years now. EuroPacific Growth since around 2006.
No, I haven't sold any and don't intend to.
Like I said, I think most American Funds are good to hold on to as none of their funds are really bad (although a few are just mediocre). However, if you have to pay the sales load, I would not buy more....I'd make my future fund purchases no-load funds instead.
Yes, I have them in my Deferred Compensation Plan (I work in the public sector...we don't have 401ks, but same idea).
I would not buy them if I had to pay the load. However, if I already owned them, I would leave them alone.
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.
