<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bill Miller is Back? Hardly.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/bill-miller-is-back-hardly/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/bill-miller-is-back-hardly/</link>
	<description>Macro Perspective on the Capital Markets, Economy, Geopolitics, Technology, and Digital Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:59:24 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: rileyx67</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/bill-miller-is-back-hardly/comment-page-1/#comment-191258</link>
		<dc:creator>rileyx67</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:07:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=31466#comment-191258</guid>
		<description>Think the implied conclusion of Bianco&#039;s piece, that none of the 8,893 other managers are providing Alpha to their funds, is somewhat flawed.  For one thing, only three periods were covered, for another only a few &quot;celebrated managers&quot; were covered.  Do agree that &quot;stuck&quot; is the operative term for too many of them who &quot;stick&quot; to a style or even sector or a holding,  like stopped clocks far too long.  And also agree with the oft-quoted comment that the average Mutual Fund underperforms the indexes, but one can also drown in a lake whose AVERAGE depth is a few inches.  The trick is to find those managers who are able to respond to changes in market behaviour and do well with consistency  over longer periods.  Personally never use the five or ten year cumulatives due start/end dates can skew significantly, but add the annual results of each fund from &#039;02 through &#039;07 and YTD, and divide by eight. (Those years, available on Morningstar, include two Bear years.)  Here are some results of that exercise for some of Bianco&#039;s as well as for SPY  (S&amp;P ETF):   Miller&#039;s LMVTX, -2.8   LCORX, 10.2; FCNTX, 5.7; CGMFX, 15.0, and some others I hold but not in the piece:  FAIRX, 8.9; RYSEX,7.6, and HRVIX, 8.5.  All except Miller&#039;s providing good Alpha over SPY at 0.67%!  Finally, did a quick averaging of SOME of the three year records in piece, and even that varied tremendously...Miller&#039;s a -47%, Baron&#039;s a -31, Gabelli a -6.2, Leuthold a -1.8, and Heebner&#039;s CGMFX at +24.5.  
Obviously not a fan of the &quot;efficient Market Theory!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Think the implied conclusion of Bianco&#8217;s piece, that none of the 8,893 other managers are providing Alpha to their funds, is somewhat flawed.  For one thing, only three periods were covered, for another only a few &#8220;celebrated managers&#8221; were covered.  Do agree that &#8220;stuck&#8221; is the operative term for too many of them who &#8220;stick&#8221; to a style or even sector or a holding,  like stopped clocks far too long.  And also agree with the oft-quoted comment that the average Mutual Fund underperforms the indexes, but one can also drown in a lake whose AVERAGE depth is a few inches.  The trick is to find those managers who are able to respond to changes in market behaviour and do well with consistency  over longer periods.  Personally never use the five or ten year cumulatives due start/end dates can skew significantly, but add the annual results of each fund from &#8216;02 through &#8216;07 and YTD, and divide by eight. (Those years, available on Morningstar, include two Bear years.)  Here are some results of that exercise for some of Bianco&#8217;s as well as for SPY  (S&amp;P ETF):   Miller&#8217;s LMVTX, -2.8   LCORX, 10.2; FCNTX, 5.7; CGMFX, 15.0, and some others I hold but not in the piece:  FAIRX, 8.9; RYSEX,7.6, and HRVIX, 8.5.  All except Miller&#8217;s providing good Alpha over SPY at 0.67%!  Finally, did a quick averaging of SOME of the three year records in piece, and even that varied tremendously&#8230;Miller&#8217;s a -47%, Baron&#8217;s a -31, Gabelli a -6.2, Leuthold a -1.8, and Heebner&#8217;s CGMFX at +24.5.<br />
Obviously not a fan of the &#8220;efficient Market Theory!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: leftback</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/bill-miller-is-back-hardly/comment-page-1/#comment-191227</link>
		<dc:creator>leftback</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:48:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=31466#comment-191227</guid>
		<description>Bill Miller is back. Way back in the pack of also-ran managers. Bye, Bill.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bill Miller is back. Way back in the pack of also-ran managers. Bye, Bill.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kent @ The Financial Philosopher</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/bill-miller-is-back-hardly/comment-page-1/#comment-191095</link>
		<dc:creator>Kent @ The Financial Philosopher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:57:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=31466#comment-191095</guid>
		<description>I imagine Bill Miller would not say that he is &quot;back.&quot;  It&#039;s all media noise.

“He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak.” ~ Michel de Montaigne</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I imagine Bill Miller would not say that he is &#8220;back.&#8221;  It&#8217;s all media noise.</p>
<p>“He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak.” ~ Michel de Montaigne</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: emmanuel117</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/bill-miller-is-back-hardly/comment-page-1/#comment-191022</link>
		<dc:creator>emmanuel117</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:44:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=31466#comment-191022</guid>
		<description>Fade Bill Miller?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fade Bill Miller?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: VennData</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/bill-miller-is-back-hardly/comment-page-1/#comment-191021</link>
		<dc:creator>VennData</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:36:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=31466#comment-191021</guid>
		<description>champion coin flipper</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>champion coin flipper</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ben22</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/bill-miller-is-back-hardly/comment-page-1/#comment-191018</link>
		<dc:creator>ben22</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:30:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=31466#comment-191018</guid>
		<description>Barron&#039;s does this all the time with mutual fund managers.

XYZ fund was down 43% last year but has enjoyed a 15% gain so far in 2009 and is in the top 25% of peers year to date.  

Do people really read this stuff and think, wow, that&#039;s a good manager?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Barron&#8217;s does this all the time with mutual fund managers.</p>
<p>XYZ fund was down 43% last year but has enjoyed a 15% gain so far in 2009 and is in the top 25% of peers year to date.  </p>
<p>Do people really read this stuff and think, wow, that&#8217;s a good manager?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
