And I believe that you warned investors in 2007 with they were buying Floating Rate funds as a money market subsitute due to their higher yield.

That's a good example as well, thanks for the reminder.  The timing was completely fortuitous (the funds started declining within a week after my warning if I remember correctly), but the underlying story was the same - you have to look beyond the past performance numbers.  The floating rate funds at the time looked like "safe" investments based on past performance because we were coming off a period of rising interest rates and stable economic growth.  Those are ideal conditions for floating rate funds.  However, by the beginning of 2007, it was clear that credit conditions were likely to deteriorate and interest rates were likely to come down before too long.  So if you were willing to look beyond the past performance, you could have avoided getting caught up in that particular swoon.

Best,
Oildog

Oildog must have poor memory. Often times in the past, whenever someone brought up CGMFX, you would "warn" them by point out LOMMX's record and how much Heebner lost during 2000-2002 with that fund and his other fund as well. So just because you didn't bring it up in this thread, doesn't mean you haven't in the past. So either you simply have bad memory or you are once again being manipulative. Take your pick.

Most CGMFX critics are most likely underweight energy. And they should hope and pray that peak oil is simply hype. If not, not only are they going to lose money at the pump but they are going to underperform in the markets as well.

Oildog must have poor memory. Often times in the past, whenever someone brought up CGMFX, you would "warn" them by point out LOMMX's record and how much Heebner lost during 2000-2002 with that fund and his other fund as well. So just because you didn't bring it up in this thread, doesn't mean you haven't in the past. So either you simply have bad memory or you are once again being manipulative. Take your pick.

Try conducting a search for "LOMMX" and "2000-2002" in the discussion archives.  Besides this thread, there are only two posts that mention those two phrases.  One is by you and one is by Kevindow. 

So, you've accused me of having a poor memory and making bizarre claims that I've never made, and I've proved that you're wrong based on facts.  Are you man enough to apologize for your error?  Or are you going to respond again with yet another set of falsehoods?

Best,
Oildog 

Let's refresh your memory then.

http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/post/2430362.aspx

 "I don't understand why anybody would trust their money with Heebner. He's run LOMMX and LOMCX far longer than he's run CGMFX. It shouldn't take longer than ten minutes to see from the fund reports that 1. his long-term record (25 years!) is mediocre at best; and 2. his style has always been extremely volatile."

" I don't think it's rocket science, but I think the picture you portray is a bit too rosy. For example, you've got a lemon in your selection. Heebner at CGM. Everybody seems to be fixated on his performance at CGM Focus (CGMFX), but he's been managing that fund only since 1997. He's been running LOMMX far longer, since 1981. His 10 year performance is distinctly subpar. Even worse, he's underpeformed an S&P 500 index fund (VFINX) for the trailing 15 year (9.3% vs. 10.8%) and 20 year (10.2% vs. 11.4%) periods. Not somebody I would trust my money with."

http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/post/2452849.aspx

"Patently, there is no evidence that Ken Heebner is a good money manager.  He has managed LOMMX and LOMCX far longer than he has managed CGMFX, and the long-term performance has been spotty at best.  This is basically a guy rolling dice with his mutual funds and his investors.  CGMFX came out with double sixes.  That is not an indication of skill.  A chimpanzee could accomplish the same thing if given enough leveraged, concentrated portfolios to run.  "

 ==

Although I missed the exact specific comparisons, the point is exactly the same. That whenever CGMFX is brought up, oildog like a broken record, automatically brings up LOMMX. 

So the statement you are disputing is this. "you would "warn" them by point out LOMMX's record and how much Heebner lost during 2000-2002".

So are you denying you would warn people about CGMFX by pointing out LOMMX's record? Granted, you didn't point out 2000-2002 specifically so I was incorrect about the specifics. But that's some nice nitpicking by you in order to avoid my point.

So still think my claim is "bizarre"? Still think I'm supposedly making things up? 

Notice that once again, this is oildog's pattern. Point out something else and throw you off the main point. Like when he brings up LOMMX to prove that CGMFX is a poor investment. Well thanks. I don't own LOMMX so I don't care what LOMMX does. But keep bringing it up anyways like a broken record. And go ahead and nitpick how you never made the 2000-2002 claim as a way to avoid the claim that you often bring up LOMMX to "warn" people about CGMFX.

Bottomline is, my point remains EXACTLY the same. What about you? Are you still making the same denials? Or are you going to claim I'm posting more "falsehoods" again?
 

ClemG:

I'm seriously considering opening a roth ira with Nygren in OAKLX.

Clem,

Are you serious???  

It's 25% financials, 36% consumer services, and 0% energy - and 0% foreign.  In other words, he's betting on that which is weakest and avoiding that which is strongest.

I don't live in the US, so it's hard for me to comment.  What are you seeing that I'm missing?

TIA. 

Norbert

oildog:

I think I'm giving him plenty of credit.  I've said repeatedly that he's likely to produce outperformance over the long-run, albeit with extreme volatility. 

Enough time spent wasting energy on debating the past, guys!  Let's help each other be incredibly successful investors.

I've said it before and I'll repeat it now:  I'd rather have 10 guys like Oildog who keep making me question my strategy than 10 guys who keep telling me how smart I am.

OK, I personally don't think Ken "Hot Hands" Heebner's streak is luck; he not only correctly identified the big momentum plays for 10 years, but he also avoided tech and recently he shorted the finance / mortgage mess ahead of the collapse.  I have a (small) place in my portfolio for this kind of aggressive growth fund.

But we don't need to reach consensus on personal investments; there are many ways to invest.  Besides, we agree that CGMFX has been and can be extremely volatile. 

---

Oildog:  have you posted your essential portfolio holdings and strategy anywhere? Favorite managers?  Link?  Or, could you summarize now?  Would be happy to reciprocate.

Norbert 

Norbertc,

I notice that you and I agreed with Oildog about CGMFX and CGMRX and that you elaborated on my theses. Maybe it's because you and I live in the same place...

And, still on the subject of Heebner, it appears that he has not designated a dauphin to take over the funds, unlike most fund managers, who bring in new blood to learn the ropes and perpetuate the fund's investment strategy.  Maybe Heebner can program a computer to churn his portfolio 400% a year after he leaves the scene.

Jagor 

jagor:

Maybe it's because you and I live in the same place...

Really!  I'm amazed.  Am at Place Monge in the 5th.  Where are you?

When I get a M* alert that Heebner is retiring, I'll be pressing the "Sell" button. 

Norbert 

Granted, you didn't point out 2000-2002 specifically so I was incorrect about the specifics.

Great, at least we agree on something for a change. 

Bottomline is, my point remains EXACTLY the same.

Not at all.  This exchange started when you accused me of twisting facts on two accounts:

If CGMFX went up in 98-99, proving oildog wrong, simply point out that CGMFX went down big during one quarter.

Or if CGMFX went up during the 2000-2002 bear market, simply point out how LOMMX went down big during 2000-2002. You see the pattern here?

In both cases, we have now established that I was not twisting any facts at all.  In the first case, CGMFX was indeed down in the 1990s - it was up only if you exclude the fund's 1997 returns, which is justifiable in this context only if you believe 1997 isn't part of the 1990s.  In the second case, I never said such a thing as you now admit.   In both cases where you're accusing me of twisting the facts in some sort of "pattern," we have now established that it was indeed you who are twisting (or completely making up) facts.  

Now, you want to change the topic to something different, which is the relationship between CGMFX and other Heebner funds.  Heebner has been involved in running several funds besides CGMFX.  The other funds have much longer performance histories (25+ years vs. 10 years) and significantly less impressive performance.  That's a fact.  I've made those factually accurate statements in several previous posts, as you demonstrated.  So what?  Do you prefer that I post lies and falsehoods instead?  What's your point?

Best,
Oildog