Word: terms
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...overall attractiveness. "These funds have relatively weak fundamentals that contribute negatively to the ranking," S&P's analysts note in their report. The reasons cited for such low star rankings: many own overvalued or risky stocks, have managers with short tenures, have high costs or offer poor long-term performance...
...Hotchkis & Wiley Mid-Cap Value Fund is up 52% so far this year, making it the fifth-best performing mid-cap value fund this year, according to Morningstar. However, S&P believes the fund's "volatile longer-term performance should give investors cause for concern." It noted that the fund significantly lagged its peer average in 2007 and 2008, pushing it into the bottom quartile on a three- and five-year total return basis. Also, S&P analysts contend the fund's securities are currently overvalued and pose risk based on their growth and consistency when it comes to historical...
However, Stan Majcher, principal and portfolio manager of the Hotchkis & Wiley Mid-Cap Value Fund, disagrees. Majcher noted that his fund has a strong long-term performance record, as Morningstar currently ranks it the third best performing mid-cap fund when it comes to annualized returns over the past 10 years, with an annualized return of 10.85%. He acknowledges the fund underperformed in 2007 and 2008, but doesn't think these periods should be considered in isolation. (Read about the financial crisis after one year...
...fund is up 71% so far in 2009 and "scored positively on S&P Fair Value and for its low-cost factors-components in the S&P fund ranking." The fund's portfolio manager, Mark Oelschlager, says his fund always seeks out stocks based on valuation and long-term investment. His fund started moving into cyclical stocks and increasing risk late last year at a time when "fear was rampant" in the market because "it was mispriced," he says. "We pay a lot of attention to valuation," adds Oelschlager. "This paid off this year and we think it will...
...that would cap U.S. carbon emissions at 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and the Senate is considering similar legislation. The threat of EPA regulation might be enough to nudge the Senate in the right direction. "We still need to pass a Senate bill because we need a long-term, clear signal about the effort we will undertake to cut carbon," said Jack Schmidt, international climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council...