Cut to the Chase

The ten-member Honor Roll of 2006 is remarkably similar to last year's cast; only one fund from 2005 didn't survive our latest challenge. There are two reasons for the steadiness in the list. One is that the measurement period goes way back (to Jan. 31, 1994). The other is that particular...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Forbes 2006-09, Vol.178 (5), p.170
Main Author: Heuslein, William
Format: Magazinearticle
Language:English
Subjects:
Mutual funds
Ratings & rankings
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The ten-member Honor Roll of 2006 is remarkably similar to last year's cast; only one fund from 2005 didn't survive our latest challenge. There are two reasons for the steadiness in the list. One is that the measurement period goes way back (to Jan. 31, 1994). The other is that particular emphasis is put on how well a fund holds up in a down market. About most of these funds you could say: It's not that they make more, it's that they lose less. Raw performance, the usual metric of fund raters, tends to reward funds that are lucky in spurts. To assess long-term performance how well funds have fared over four market cycles is looked at. Funds have to earn a B grade or higher in down markets and at least a C in up markets. Contenders are put through a battery of tests.
ISSN:0015-6914
2609-1445