Morningstar Inc. (MORN)

All Comments on MORN

  • commenter
    Indexor
    Mar 14 11:40 AM
    Morningstar's 'Vastly Superior' ETF Research? [view article]
    I certainly hope those still using Morningstar are individual investors and not advisors. Morningstar's only value is that of a historical data provider on mutual funds. Nothing more and nothing less. Anyone relying on Morningstar for "fundamental analysis" is delusional. Anyone relying on Morningstar for their "novel approach to evaluating ETFs" is probably also doing their due diligence on a real estate or oil & gas limited partnership with a 7-1 write-off. Please refer back to the second sentence. Reply
  • commenter
    tjschoenlein
    Mar 14 10:22 AM
    Morningstar's 'Vastly Superior' ETF Research? [view article]
    Good comments.. for me, I " shop around " I cross reference with several sources, my brokerage house, morningstar, etc. to see how their data, analysis matches up and then add \ substract info... make a decision.
    It works for me. *Please note, no one should pay any attention to me. I own Citi and most of the bank stocks.. + XHB.
    Reply
  • commenter
    Jan
    Rogozinski
    Mar 13 10:53 PM
    My Website
    Morningstar's 'Vastly Superior' ETF Research? [view article]
    For years, I was fooled by Morningstar. I didn't buy oil at $50 a barrel because Mstar "analysts" said it was grossly overpriced and would soon fall back to a more normal level of $15 a barrel.

    over all, , there is something very wrong with their entire method of viewing risk. One example. There's a fund called Permanent Portfolio, which has never had a down or negative year since about 1980. And which over time has had (unlike savings accounts or CDs) positive returns much higher than than the inflation rate. . Nevertheless, they rate it as "very risky." That's just nuts. The reality is that the fund is safer than a CD or a US treasury bond. So how could it be risky.

    I finally have decided that they confuse short term volatility with long term risk. So if a stock or fund fluctuates in value as it's return is rising, they think it is risky-- even when the overall trend always is higher, year after year. Meanwhile, they think a stock or fund is without risk if it goes along rising .00000000010% a year over time but without it's price fluctauating. in teh short term..

    My advice. Use their abundance of data. But totally ignore their so-called analyses.     Reply
  • commenter
    Panskeptic
    Mar 13 10:50 PM
    Morningstar's 'Vastly Superior' ETF Research? [view article]
    The whole notion of fair value is predicated not on solid numbers but their manipulation to fit a set of expectations.

    These predictions may be more or less informed, but the whole process remains subjective, and shows that Morningstar still hasn't a clue how to survive into the next generation.

    Cite one example or many, they are going down.     Reply
  • commenter
    Kevin Price
    Mar 13 09:19 PM
    My Website
    Morningstar's 'Vastly Superior' ETF Research? [view article]
    Milo--In noting that it was "too easy," I tried to acknowledge that the single instance of XLF should not be viewed as indicative of Morningstar's entire effort. But it is reflective of the hubris of the entire undertaking, one in which consumers of this information have to hope the whole (the ETF fair value estimate) is worth more than than the sum of its parts (the individual stock fair value estimates). I don't see it working that way--and I don't think this is a particularly useful of thinking about ETFs anyway. For the vast majority of investors, they should be part of long-term asset allocation strategies, not the sort of gun-slinging implicit in Morningstar's construct.

    In any case, the argument of this post isn't contingent on what happens to XLF in the near term. I just threw it in to be a little extra snarky. That may sit better with some readers than others, but it doesn't invalidate the overarching logic of the post.     Reply
  • commenter
    E.D. Hart
    Mar 13 07:25 PM
    Morningstar's 'Vastly Superior' ETF Research? [view article]
    I subscribe to Morningstar, but it comes with a bag of salt. And limitations. They make have consistently undervalued the energy and commodities sectors because they have, in the past, incredibly low expectations for oil, gold, natural gas, and silver prices. I would argue that this is another 'dimension of uncertainty'. If you followed their advice on gold and oil stocks you would have missed the rally of the last 7 years. In this regard they are followers not leaders.

    With respect to commodities they overestimate the risk--and have very low star ratings for very high value stocks because their price expectations of commodities are entirely too low. They see a cycle when there is in fact a trend.

    In the financial stocks the situation is the reverse--they have very high star ratings (For Citigroup for Example) and consistently have underestimated risk, and overestimated fair value. How can we know the fair value of Citigroup, if the extent of their balance sheet deterioration is unknown, and essentially currently unknowable?

    It reminds me of Bill Miller--the past must be the future--right? Keep pouring money in Amazon. Or maybe, we are in a new inflationary era where the p/es will contract (on average) margins will compress, earnings will decelerate, and only companies that have protection against rising prices will thrive?     Reply
  • commenter
    Roger
    Nusbaum
    Mar 13 06:39 PM
    My Website
    Morningstar's 'Vastly Superior' ETF Research? [view article]
    Morningstar not getting it? Amen! Reply
  • commenter
    Lisa
    Mar 13 04:11 PM
    Morningstar's 'Vastly Superior' ETF Research? [view article]
    Morningstar is struggling because the focus of investors is shifting strongly to ETFs from mutual funds. But Morningstar has little to say about index ETFs, so it has to come up with something. And this is what they came up with. A reasonable effort, but ultimately unconvincing. Reply
  • commenter
    milo Wolff
    Mar 13 03:28 PM
    Morningstar's 'Vastly Superior' ETF Research? [view article]
    Seeking Alpha makes a logical error in its rebuttal to Morningstar. SA chooses only ONE example to make its case. The value of the Morningstar portfolio of ETFs is in the AVERAGE improvement of the whole set. Of course, some will go bad but hopefully most will be good.
    Cherry-picking ONE bad one is illogical.     Reply
  • commenter
    Xingzhi
    Jan 21 01:52 PM
    Where Morningstar Goes Wrong on ETFs [view article]
    MORN's opinion seems to echo US Media (finnancial media included)'s opinion (or "news") about China: always negative no matter what and when.

    They must believer they are providing what American audience wants to hear: China is hopeless.

    Sour grape psychology is rather universal, but what's seen in the US is just incredible     Reply
  • commenter
    Roger
    Nusbaum
    Jan 14 08:33 AM
    My Website
    Where Morningstar Goes Wrong on ETFs [view article]
    So, anyone at M-Star listening? Reply
  • commenter
    goalposts
    Jan 13 11:34 PM
    Where Morningstar Goes Wrong on ETFs [view article]
    Couldn't agree more. Someone needed to out M-star for their arrogance. Their refusal to be critical of massively-front-end-lo... mutual funds is enough to turn me off to them. I'm not sure if I even trust them as a data provider. But maybe they're just long term investors, and believe that, given enough time, everything regresses to the mean... Reply
  • commenter
    Indexor
    Jan 13 01:15 PM
    Where Morningstar Goes Wrong on ETFs [view article]
    In my humble opinion, the only value Morningstar provides is that of a data provider. Anything beyond data - star system, risk ratings, opinions, etc., should be considered as nothing more than filler. Morningstar is stuck in a 1980's 8% front-end-load mutual fund model. When it comes to ETFs, their comments are very transparent (always in favor of the mutual funds being threatened by new ETFs) and almost comical at best.

    For ETFs especially, and even general investment information, take a look at IndexUniverse, Seeking Alpha and The Kirk Report for starters, to find opinions that offer value. While M-Star obviously has many well-educated, smart and talented analysts they are sadly being misdirected and biased against the entire ETF industry.

    While John Bogle's anti-ETF views mirror those of Morningstar, look at the success Vanguard's ETFs have experienced under John Brennan. Maybe Morningstar needs a change at the top in order to transform itself into the research firm for mutual funds, ETFs, CEFs, stocks, bonds and annuities that it has the talent to become.     Reply
  • commenter
    abbottmd
    Jan 13 11:58 AM
    Where Morningstar Goes Wrong on ETFs [view article]
    if buying a single country fund is such a bad idea, then why are there so many US-specific mutual funds? this strikes me as the height of hypocrisy by morningstar Reply
  • commenter
    kkin365
    Jan 13 10:39 AM
    My Website
    Where Morningstar Goes Wrong on ETFs [view article]
    I am with you, Roger. I only occasionally look at FXI, and have never taken a position in any of the ETFs mentioned. My query: Why does Morningstar hold a multi-year grudge against ETFs focusing on China? Is this another version of Barron's not liking LDK? It seems that the street has a bias against China-domiciled companies/securities. Saying that a new ETF is "the worst in 2007" presumably is based on facts. Can this be substantiated? You need to give specifics. Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: