|
|
Post by chang on Jun 10, 2023 14:40:38 GMT
Go figure...
Wasatch Ultra Growth WAMCX ★★★★
Adj. Expense Ratio 1.180%
www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/wamcx/quote
Wasatch Ultra Growth Institutional WGMCX ★★
Adj. Expense Ratio 1.050%
www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/wgmcx/quote
Yes, I'm aware why this happens: because investor-class and institutional-class funds are analyzed separately. But many investors search and filter, and compare, funds using the star rating. You might inadverdently think that WAMCX is a better fund than WGMCX, when obviously the opposite is true. |
|
|
|
Post by retiredat48 on Jun 10, 2023 15:24:31 GMT
BTW Studies have shown that a five star rating from M* (looking backwards ten years) at a given date resulted in a BELOW 50% comparison performance in the future!
R48
|
|
|
|
Post by yogibearbull on Jun 10, 2023 15:31:14 GMT
Well, the real reason is that institutional WGMCX is a newer class with 01/2020 inception, while older WAMCX has 08/1992 inception. M* used backward-extensions for some things such as Charts, Performance, Analyst Ratings, but not for *-ratings. I think that M* had a system of hollow-* when the class didn't have a full history, so something isn't working. Also strange is that portions of Analyst Rating descriptions (especially, Performance) differ.
Also be aware of 2% redemption fee for selling within 60 days - this may be in addition to any brokerage NTF platform fee for short-term trading (WAMCX only).
If you like this fund, go with institutional WGMCX ($100K min) and give M* ratings a pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by steadyeddy on Jun 11, 2023 20:47:08 GMT
I use M* ratings as just one factor to consider, but I agree that different fund classes of the same fund getting drastically different ratings does not make sense.
In this case, I would use the rating of a fund that has longest history.
|
|
|
|
Post by yogibearbull on Jun 11, 2023 21:26:09 GMT
steadyeddy, well, glitches aside, I think it's an improvement. In most cases, the M* class ratings differ due to different ERs. Before, when M* used the same rating for all classes, with low and high ERs, that was confusing, even misleading. As I mentioned, I don't know why the M* system of Hollow-* (vs Solid-*) didn't kick in in this case. M* now uses the data from the oldest class, adjusts for ER differences, and then uses Hollow-* to flag this (italicized numbers in Performance tables). 2012 URL www.morningstar.com/articles/572617/seeing-hollow-stars-heres-why2022 Download www.morningstar.com/api-corporate/midway/v1/research/download/853935?timestamp=16763226600000600&token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJkYXRhIjp7ImRvY3VtZW50SWQiOjg1MzkzNX0sImlhdCI6MTY4NjUxODEwN30.iKOkUhd24ottrTBOFCb3Z-naCo-CZvjE-Fuvu1_UZEg"For multi-share situations, Morningstar displays extended performance returns with italicized numbers and extended performance ratings with hollow stars."
|
|
|
|
Post by steadyeddy on Jun 12, 2023 0:26:27 GMT
steadyeddy , well, glitches aside, I think it's an improvement. In most cases, the M* class ratings differ due to different ERs. Before, when M* used the same rating for all classes, with low and high ERs, that was confusing, even misleading. As I mentioned, I don't know why the M* system of Hollow-* (vs Solid-*) didn't kick in in this case. M* now uses the data from the oldest class, adjusts for ER differences, and then uses Hollow-* to flag this (italicized numbers in Performance tables). 2012 URL www.morningstar.com/articles/572617/seeing-hollow-stars-heres-why2022 Download www.morningstar.com/api-corporate/midway/v1/research/download/853935?timestamp=16763226600000600&token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJkYXRhIjp7ImRvY3VtZW50SWQiOjg1MzkzNX0sImlhdCI6MTY4NjUxODEwN30.iKOkUhd24ottrTBOFCb3Z-naCo-CZvjE-Fuvu1_UZEg"For multi-share situations, Morningstar displays extended performance returns with italicized numbers and extended performance ratings with hollow stars." , agree completely that in most cases ER is used as the basis even in index funds such as ETF/OEF pairs of same strategy. The particular case highlighted in the OP is perhaps an error that slipped through the quality of data checks at M*. |
|
|
|
Post by bb2 on Jun 24, 2023 20:07:05 GMT
Oh my, WAMCX. Fee 1.18%, turnover 34%. This is a dog. Poor perf too. Totally useless, BTW. I subscribed for about 5 years - too lazy to opt out but got a new CC after a hack, so card on record failed. Thank you, Mr. crook, you saved me a few bucks.
Top 10 Holdings
Freshpet Inc
3.72%
Intra-Cellular Therapies Inc
3.65%
Floor & Decor Holdings Inc Class A
3.55%
Inspire Medical Systems Inc
3.46%
Five Below Inc
3.09%
Five9 Inc
2.87%
Paylocity Holding Corp
2.86%
Monolithic Power Systems Inc
2.78%
Balchem Corp
2.75%
Nova Ltd
2.71%
Total
31.45%
|
|
