Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
Mutual fund trends: Bonds are still in demand
First Published Jul 17 2014 02:36 pm • Last Updated Jul 17 2014 02:36 pm

New York • Experts say bonds are less attractive than stocks. Whatever.

Investors are continuing to pour money into bond mutual funds despite the warnings from Wall Street. So far, those investors have looked smart for doing so. Bond funds have delivered solid returns despite dour predictions. That, plus some other trends from around the mutual fund industry:

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment


Bond fund investors got a reminder last year that even relatively safe investments can lose money. The average intermediate-term bond fund lost 1.4 percent, and at the start of this year many analysts were forecasting continued struggles.

But intermediate-term bond funds instead returned 4.1 percent through the end of June. Investors noticed, and they plugged a net $3.48 billion into those funds last month, according to Morningstar. Intermediate-term bond funds are the largest category of bond funds by assets, with $956 billion in total.

It’s part of a wider move back into bond funds, which as a group attracted $70.53 billion in net investment in the first six months of 2014. Last year, investors pulled a net $37.12 billion.

Investors, meanwhile, have remained ambivalent about stocks, which are setting record highs. Investors pulled more money out of U.S. stock funds last month than they put in, the second straight month that’s happened.

Still, many analysts along Wall Street continue to say stocks look like a better investment than bonds. Analysts are worried about interest rates, which they predict will rise due to a strengthening economy and the Federal Reserve letting up on the accelerator for stimulus. Rising rates hurt prices for existing bonds, whose yields suddenly look less attractive.


We’re all swiping our credit cards at CVS while on the way to vacations booked on priceline.com. At least, that’s what many mutual fund managers are hoping.

story continues below
story continues below

After surveying 485 mutual funds with $1.4 trillion in assets, a Goldman Sachs review found that Visa, Priceline Group, CVS Caremark and MasterCard are among their favorites. To determine which were indeed favorites, the bank’s strategists identified those that had higher fund ownership than one would expect, relative to their size in stock indexes.

Visa, for example, makes up 1 percent of the average mutual fund’s portfolio, when it represents just 0.6 percent of its benchmark.

By sector, Goldman Sachs found that mutual fund managers appear most optimistic about companies that sell non-essential items to consumers. A strengthening job market would help consumers spend more, and employers have added more than 200,000 jobs in each of the last five months. The last time that happened was in 1999-2000.

Fund managers appear to be least confident about utility stocks, which many say have become too expensive relative to their earnings following strong stock-price gains.


Everyone would like to be the best. It’s why investors consider the higher fees charged by actively managed mutual funds. These funds hire stock pickers to buy winning stocks, all in hopes of beating their peers and broad-market indexes.

But few funds are able to do it consistently. Consider the 1,431 U.S. stock funds that ranked among the top half of their peers for one-year performance in March 2010. The following year, only 43 percent of the funds in that group were able to replicate their success, according to S&P Dow Jones Indices. Less than 5 percent were able to do it five years in a row.

To be sure, many stock pickers would ask investors to consider their long-term records -- how their funds’ five-year returns compare with their peers -- rather than just whether they beat them for five successive years. That’s also a tough task: Only 27 percent of all large-cap stock funds had better five-year returns than the Standard & Poor’s 500 index through 2013, according to S&P Dow Jones Indices.


Next Page >

Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment

About Reader Comments

Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.