'Unloved' funds might be right pick for you
It's IRA time, with people opening individual retirement accounts after doing their tax returns, then fretting over where to invest the money.
Some labor over the decision, figuring there is one right fund. Yet if you already have a balanced mixture that invests in the total U.S. stock market, a diversified international fund and a bond fund, and want to add some spice, you might want to pick a fund that disgusts you.
Yes, you read that right. I'm talking about picking an ugly fund, one that people haven't wanted to touch for the past three years.
Typically, people figure the way to make money is to go with the fund that's been bestowing wealth and winning the hearts of investors lately.
But the truth is that stocks and funds run in cycles. They are sweet for a while, then turn ugly, and eventually become darlings again after no one has wanted to touch them.
So a strategy suggested by Morningstar since 1994 is to choose what it calls “the unloved.” That means picking a type of fund that has been snubbed in the marketplace.
I'm not talking about a fund with a lousy manager. Those funds tend to stay lousy. And I'm not talking about a fund that has such high fees that investors never make as much money in them as they would in a cheaper fund.
Rather, I am talking about a fund that invests in a certain category, one most people consider unpopular at the time. In the mid-'90s, such a category was gold. When Morningstar suggested buying the unloved precious metal funds of 1995, the idea sounded ridiculous. No one wanted to touch the stuff. For years, gold had been a loser. Then in 2000, gold started to win favor with investors, and by 2008 it was clearly becoming beloved. A few years later, it was the darling of investors, and the SPDR Gold Trust fund became one of the most popular funds sold.
As Morningstar has studied its “unloved” strategy, however, it has found that unpopular funds can be detested for a long time, sometimes years. So the firm's analysts suggest that people buy only a little and that they simultaneously invest in the three most unpopular categories from the past three years. Together, each year's three unloved funds have gained, on average, 8.4 percent a year from 1993 through 2012, Morningstar's Katie Rushkewicz Reichart said. That's compared with a 6.9 percent average annual gain in the MSCI World Index, an index that reflects the stocks of the world in aggregate.
Note that you don't pick the trio based on how awful their returns have been for three years. Rather, you pick them based on how much people have come to detest them, indicated by investors leaving in droves.
So the unloved group that you would buy this year would include a large-cap growth fund, or a fund that picks stocks of large companies with fast growth — companies such as Apple — and a large-cap value fund, or a fund that picks large companies that are cheaply priced. In addition, you would pick a large-cap blend fund, or a fund that picks a variety of large companies, some fast growers and some that are more sluggish, but all with cheap stock prices.
Gail MarksJarvis is a personal finance columnist for the Chicago Tribune and author of “Saving for Retirement Without Living Like a Pauper or Winning the Lottery.” Readers may send her email at email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Nike, Under Armour invest in watching exercisers’ steps
- Camera prevalence approaches sci-fi realm
- Experts: If health insurers’ safeguard goes broke, consumers could pay
- Scented society is killing cheap perfume industry
- Visa limits vex businesses
- ‘Promposals’ can be small as burritos, big as Jumbotrons
- Rules could kick door open for nuclear power
- Paper’s prevalence unlikely to diminish
- Retailers vie for workers in tightening labor market
- Pittsburgh union serving TV, film production looking for lots of help
- Mylan raises bid for fellow drugmaker; Perrigo says ‘no’