So far this fund,REREX, has done very well this past year. What do you
all think of it? I ask as it is offered by my retirement plan at work.
I own it but am wondering if I should add to it via dollar cost
averaging.
Nice looking chart, only 80 million in assets... the good part is that the
money can be moved around quickly as opposed to something like the big,
bloated Fidelity Magellan fund, which looks like a beached whale dying in
the sun....
I've always liked funds with small capitalization, and Pacific Rim looks
like a good place to put some money.
Happy Guy
..
..
<> wrote in message
news:
> So far this fund,REREX, has done very well this past year. What do you
> all think of it? I ask as it is offered by my retirement plan at work.
> I own it but am wondering if I should add to it via dollar cost
> averaging.
>
"happy-guy" <> wrote
> Nice looking chart, only 80 million in assets... the good part is that the
> money can be moved around quickly as opposed to something like the big,
> bloated Fidelity Magellan fund, which looks like a beached whale dying in
> the sun....
>
> I've always liked funds with small capitalization, and Pacific Rim looks
> like a good place to put some money.
REREX is the R4 shares of American Funds EuroPacific Growth Fund.
This fund has 14 share classes if you can believe that. The fund has $54.2
billion in assets
for the combined share classes.
Whatever, I'm getting tired of this "I'm righter than you" crap...
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------
American Funds EuroPacific Gr R4 REREX See Fund Family Data
Morningstar Category Morningstar Rating
Total Assets($mil) Expense Ratio %
70,751 0.88
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------
We quibble over minor, stupid stuff, looks like I won't be getting a new
portfolio, even though the rules say I can.....
I think I need a rest from this group......
Happy Guy
..
..
"Ed" <> wrote in message
>
> REREX is the R4 shares of American Funds EuroPacific Growth Fund.
> This fund has 14 share classes if you can believe that. The fund has $54.2
> billion in assets
> for the combined share classes.
>
>
wrote:
> So far this fund,REREX, has done very well this past year. What do you
> all think of it?
I don't like any fund with a track record less than 10 years. That
means the manager may not have much experience coping with a variety of
market conditions. His bio doesn't show him having managed other mutual
funds.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Arne, it has nothing to with I'm righter than you. I had the facts and you
didn't, no big deal.
If you would be more interested in a fund with $80 million than a fund with
$54.2 billion I thought you'd want the info. I'll spare you the "crap" next
time. Did you have a bad night or something? I did not consider it to be
quibbling.
> I think I need a rest from this group......
Might do you a world of good.
"Steven L." <> wrote in message
news:7dbyf.7402$
> wrote:
>
>> So far this fund,REREX, has done very well this past year. What do you
>> all think of it?
>
> I don't like any fund with a track record less than 10 years. That means
> the manager may not have much experience coping with a variety of market
> conditions. His bio doesn't show him having managed other mutual funds.
The fund has been around for over 20 years, the share class has been around
since 6/2002.
Stephen E. Bepler has been the lead manager since inception, 4/16/1984.
Ed wrote:
> "Steven L." <> wrote in message
> news:7dbyf.7402$
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So far this fund,REREX, has done very well this past year. What do you
>>>all think of it?
>>
>>I don't like any fund with a track record less than 10 years. That means
>>the manager may not have much experience coping with a variety of market
>>conditions. His bio doesn't show him having managed other mutual funds.
>
>
> The fund has been around for over 20 years, the share class has been around
> since 6/2002.
> Stephen E. Bepler has been the lead manager since inception, 4/16/1984.
I stand corrected. For some reason, Yahoo!Finance doesn't have more
than a couple years' worth of performance data for the fund, which led
me to believe mistakenly that the fund must be new.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Ed wrote:
> REREX is the R4 shares of American Funds EuroPacific Growth Fund.
> This fund has 14 share classes if you can believe that.
Share classes R1-R4 are investor grade; two classes, comprising two of
fours for eight are education and respectively retirement,
institutional grade. Charter or some other name begining with -c
fronts AF marketing/purchasing, and a slew of them were on a NY docket
for insider/timing violations a year ago. Who isn't on a take, at
times I find difficult to believe.
-When in charge: ponder, trouble: delegate, doubt: mumble.
Flasherly wrote:
>
> AF [American Funds] ..., and a slew of them were on a NY docket
> for insider/timing violations a year ago.
Not for insider/timing violations.
"At issue is whether the mutual fund firm steered a percentage of stock
market trades to brokerage firms that were top sellers of its own funds.
.... The NASD alleges the relationships are a "quid pro quo" arrangement
in which brokerage firms are paid commissions to tout some mutual funds
over others."
(Look for "directed brokerage")
The SEC is also looking into American Funds, but:
"Unlike the "market timing" fund industry abuses that were revealed two
years ago cases in which many fund companies were caught red-handed
ripping off shareholders the American Funds probe involves an arguably
gray area of securities law: determining whether a stock trading
commission was fair or not."
As the article goes on to explain, so long as the fund gets best
execution, it doesn't matter who you get it from. The article is fairly
good at describing the issues, and they aren't clear cut, unlike the
"insider/timing violations" you were asserting.
FWIW, Morningstar has not "downgraded" American Funds so far, due to
lack of evidence.
--
Mark Freeland
Mark Freeland wrote:
>
Interesting. First I've seen of direct brokerage violations prior to
2004. Like this judge's analogy - "Unlike pornography, which while
difficult to define is known when seen, best execution is easily
defined but is often unrecognizable." I wonder if that could be in
reference to one too many messy poundcake productions.
> As the article goes on to explain, so long as the fund gets best
> execution, it doesn't matter who you get it from. The article is fairly
> good at describing the issues, and they aren't clear cut, unlike the
> "insider/timing violations" you were asserting.
(of a like I
ran into).
> FWIW, Morningstar has not "downgraded" American Funds so far, due to
> lack of evidence.
Also interesting is mention of a Rep. Cox, specifically in Orange
County - believe that may be one of the prototype issues arising early
out of capitalism as a vehicle in government pensions plans. Orange
Co.'s pension was up high in the news sometime ago for losing quite
large.
Flasherly wrote:
>
> (of a like I
> ran into).
Old news about a suit without merit. (One might infer from your mention
of this suit, and this particular link, that the complaint had
substance; but the first line of this page reads: "According to a press
release [by the class action plaintiffs' law firms] ...")
This is a Feb 2004 class action lawsuit, not joined by any government or
regulatory (e.g. NASD) authority. Anyone can file a lawsuit.
Here's what Forbes wrote a few months after this PR "story" was put on
the wires:
"Throughout the mutual fund investigations, many of the biggest fund
families-- Vanguard, American and Fidelity--have appeared untouchable."
That shows how much credibility Forbes placed on the lawsuit. Forbes
ignored it (but placed weight on government and regulatory authority
investigations).
What happened to the complaint?
Here's what American Funds said about it in December 2004 (when it was
still apparently in the courts):
"In addition, the American Funds and Capital Research and Management
Company have been named in class action lawsuits related to market
timing and certain sales practices. These lawsuits are without merit and
will be defended vigorously."
Here's the same page, as it currently exists (no mention of the class
action suit, which is solid evidence that it was dismissed - American
Funds continues to post current complaints and pending actions against
it):
Here's the law firm's list of current securities cases (no mention
there, either):
If there had been any merit, wouldn't the law firm have posted the
results along with all its other securities accomplishments over the
past few years? Here's their page of accomplishments:
> Also interesting is mention of a Rep. Cox, specifically in Orange
> County - believe that may be one of the prototype issues arising early
> out of capitalism as a vehicle in government pensions plans. Orange
> Co.'s pension was up high in the news sometime ago for losing quite
> large.
Guilt by association? Because the county government had investment
issues, the federal representative of the region is somehow tainted?
What makes Orange County different from the rest of the country in its
pension shortfall? "It wasn't only in California that benefits crept up
during the end of the bull market. Public employees saw benefit
enhancements in New York, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, and many other
states."
Admittedly Orange County was in the news for financial mismanagement
that set it apart from the crowd, but not because of its pension
problems - rather for its having gone bankrupt.
--
Mark Freeland
Mark Freeland wrote:
> Old news about a suit without merit. (One might infer from your mention
> of this suit, and this particular link, that the complaint had
> substance; but the first line of this page reads: "According to a press
> release [by the class action plaintiffs' law firms] ...")
> This is a Feb 2004 class action lawsuit, not joined by any government or
> regulatory (e.g. NASD) authority. Anyone can file a lawsuit.
Yes, on the bottom of the paper, I did note their disclaimer for any
substantive effect, either mitigating or otherwise. It's old territory.
Rather reminded me of a precursor to an exercise. Nowadays, things are
much stricter. A groan escapes from under a weight of SEC imposed
limitations in this minutes report:
I'm admittedly an inured sceptic for having taken a brunt of
Putnam/Janus debacle in my Joe Doe days, which I wrote off as a lesson
least resembling sound investment practices. Complicity as a standard
means I would as soon regard as relative to a timeframe for popular
focus. Joe Doe wayward manners didn't encompass vogue newsfeeds
scouring evidence for a corpus supportive of allegations that somewhat
over half mutual trades were short-term, favored broker and hedges
played, or what funds have to lack in distinction to qualify, contrary
to what fund respresentation or the SEC would look upon with stout
indignation.
A fine of $2.3B imposed on an industry comprising $9T assets sealed
what appears to have been a prevailing aspect with assurances, we may
hope.
> Guilt by association? Because the county government had investment
> issues, the federal representative of the region is somehow tainted?
I wouldn't more than have remarked a coincidence for proximity apart
from association. Not an especially germane remark, apart from a
pension plan and appertaining, though, as you surmised, misplaced
budget;--No, not altogether surrepitiously nor nearly as remarkable as
a role Citreon is cited for paranormal investment strategies, no doubt
attributable to an exegesis of astrological media Nancy Regean remarked
at the time. Thanks for the kinky link, Mark.