Best Canadian mutual funds

LazerHawk wrote: ↑ It would have been nice to see some D series or mutual funds that don't need a fee-based advisor.

Not sure about the Manulife fund but for the TD funds, I think you'll see the D series equivalents performed comparably to the F series.

I myself hold both of the Investor series equivalents and they've been key performers in my MF portfolio for several years.

I'm liquidating my entire MF portfolio (it's all TD Investor series with high MER) as soon as the Dec distributions are paid out and would also be interested in discussion about ETF alternatives. Some factor ETFs perhaps?

Samiracle wrote: ↑ Not sure about the Manulife fund but for the TD funds, I think you'll see the D series equivalents performed comparably to the F series.

I myself hold both of the Investor series equivalents and they've been key performers in my MF portfolio for several years.

I'm liquidating my entire MF portfolio (it's all TD Investor series with high MER) as soon as the Dec distributions are paid out and would also be interested in discussion about ETF alternatives. Some factor ETFs perhaps?

I'm in a similar boat. The high MERs are beginning to be a deal breaker for me. For factor ETFs, I've been eyeing quality and perhaps a little momentum.

For sector ETFs, I'm invested in QTUM (quant computing) and CQQQ (China tech). These are risky bets, so I am not holding particularly huge positions.

LazerHawk wrote: ↑ I'm in a similar boat. The high MERs are beginning to be a deal breaker for me. For factor ETFs, I've been eyeing quality and perhaps a little momentum.

For sector ETFs, I'm invested in QTUM (quant computing) and CQQQ (China tech). These are risky bets, so I am not holding particularly huge positions.

if you like index based ETF's, closer to home, have you looked at the 10 year performance comparison to CQQQ

https://www.splithistory.com/?symbol=cqqq

in the following

TQQQ

https://www.splithistory.com/tqqq/

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TQQQ/

UPRO

https://www.splithistory.com/?symbol=UPRO

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/UPRO?p= ... c=fin-srch

SOXL

https://www.splithistory.com/?symbol=soxl

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SOXL?p= ... c=fin-srch

porticoman wrote: ↑ if you like index based ETF's, closer to home, have you looked at the 10 year performance comparison to CQQQ

https://www.splithistory.com/?symbol=cqqq

in the following

TQQQ

https://www.splithistory.com/tqqq/

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TQQQ/

UPRO

https://www.splithistory.com/?symbol=UPRO

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/UPRO?p= ... c=fin-srch

SOXL

https://www.splithistory.com/?symbol=soxl

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SOXL?p= ... c=fin-srch

That's awesome, thank you. I'm going to take a look and compare!

This looks like another one of those automated robo news stories. It just pulls the top 3 out of a ranking of all funds (all series) and tells you what the top 3 are for a period of time. Since F-class have the lower fees, they come out on top.

That Manulife Global Small Cap is actually the F series version of the Mawer Global Small Cap.

LazerHawk wrote: ↑ The high MERs are beginning to be a deal breaker for me.

But that doesn't make much sense.... if you compare the performance of each of these funds to their associated index (ie the small/mid-cap funds to the Russell 2000 index of small/mid-cap companies), they blow the index out of the water even with the higher MERs and fees. By switching over to an ETF (ie the index), sure you save a huge portion of the fees but you would also give up a huge portion of the gains as well. And, I know, "past performance is not indicative of future results" but given the drastic outperformance in comparison to the index, they should account for something. Now, if the performance was much closer to the index, then you might have point that it may not be worth the risk to say in comparison to a saving in the MER but the performance of the funds vs that of the index is really not even comparable.

craftsman wrote: ↑ But that doesn't make much sense.... if you compare the performance of each of these funds to their associated index (ie the small/mid-cap funds to the Russell 2000 index of small/mid-cap companies), they blow the index out of the water even with the higher MERs and fees. By switching over to an ETF (ie the index), sure you save a huge portion of the fees but you would also give up a huge portion of the gains as well. And, I know, "past performance is not indicative of future results" but given the drastic outperformance in comparison to the index, they should account for something. Now, if the performance was much closer to the index, then you might have point that it may not be worth the risk to say in comparison to a saving in the MER but the performance of the funds vs that of the index is really not even comparable.

Why not track a sector index with an ETF and pay less than 1% in fees (ie. QTUM)? Gains are gains. Maybe the better argument is downside protection with active management.

LazerHawk wrote: ↑ Why not track a sector index with an ETF and pay less than 1% in fees (ie. QTUM)? Gains are gains. Maybe the better argument is downside protection with active management.

Because if you look at the actual performance numbers over the 10 year period and the returns on an annual basis, the numbers some times down bear out the downside protection argument - ie there are a year here and there where the funds perform worst than the index. You could say that with these funds, the active managers are earning their keep due to the rapid recovery down years (just look at some of the performance numbers for 2009 - just after the Great Recession) and general outperformance in most 'average' years.

The problem with tracking the sector with an index is that not every stock is in the index and not every index stock affects the index in the same way. For example, if you picked an average index, they are market weighted which means that the larger the company, the more affect price moves will have on the index - ie AAPL is 7% of the SP500 index. So, some smaller index companies may have great moves but the index will bearly move while others will have smaller moves but move the index. Then of course, there are the companies that aren't in the index that move - many of the best movers in a year aren't in the index but may be added later after the move.