Q&A: Why is it bad for a mutual fund to have too many assets?
Question by Yardbird: Why is it bad for a mutual fund to have too many assets?
I keep reading on morningstar and other finance sites about how “such and such a mutual fund is getting too bloated with assets,” and that this is especially a problem for funds that focus on small-cap stocks. And I see that Vanguard and many other companies have closed funds to new investors–even Vanguard’s Windsor II, which focuses on huge corporations, has restricted new investors. Let’s say a mutual fund purchases more that 50% of a company, why is that bad? Isn’t that what Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway does?
Best answer:
Answer by Kipper
The more assets a mutual fund has the more I like it. It means it will never go too high or too low. You don’t want to gamble when it comes to mutual funds. Gamble on a good stock in the market, or on a State of federal Bond Fund.
Add your own answer in the comments!
Related posts:
- Investors Group Reports April 2010 Mutual Fund Sales and Assets Under Management O’Leary Funds Management LP announces that the merger of O’Leary...
- Will a mutual fund keep the dividends earned from stock holdings if the fund feels they are not growing? Question by J: Will a mutual fund keep the dividends...
- What happens to my mutual fund shares if the mutual fund company goes bankrupt? by Center for American Progress Question by AxelBoldt: What happens...
- What exactly is a mutual fund, and how do I invest in one? Question by audidriver79: What exactly is a mutual fund, and...
- Q&A: what do you call a managed fund that is neither a mutual fund nor a hedge fund? Question by Paradise Seeker: what do you call a managed...
Comments
First, you cannot purchase more than 10% of a company’s stock without stating your intent and filing with the SEC. That may involve a hostile takeover.
I saw a list recently of the top 100 largest mutual funds. I think the smallest on that list was $ 86 billion. Certainly you want to diversify, and it would be rare where a fund manager would buy 10% of a company’s stock, so with $ 86 billion, it’s hard to find enough good companies worth investing in.
The small Nasdaq stocks, don’t have enough float (available shares) to make it worth this fund’s time. If they can only spend a few million, why waste their time? Even if the stock doubles in price, it will not effect the bottom line of the fund significantly.
Basically, the reason is that it becomes harder to “move the needle” as Warren Buffett says. In other words, the more money a particular fund has, the larger any particular position has to be to make an impact on the funds results. A $ 10 million investment, no matter how well it does isn’t going to have much impact on a $ 50 billion fund. The larger the fund, the larger the investments needed to make a difference. The larger the minimum investment, the smaller number of choices a particular fund manager has, and theoretically, the less well he’ll be able to do.
Leave a Comment