What is with the dogma of these mutual funds? Why in this country do mutual funds create charters that make it so that funds must lose money in certain environments?
A friend of mine who runs a fund of funds (a manager who places money for you with different funds), shocked me the other day by pointing out that of all the mutual funds he follows worldwide, only the U.S. tech mutual funds have placed such onerous restrictions on their managements to stick with their sectors no matter what.
Only the U.S. has funds that are guaranteed to clobber you if things are bad in tech.
In fact, of the 44 worldwide tech managers that this fund-of-funds fellow covers, only the U.S. guys are being slaughtered. They are the only ones that are down huge so far this year.
Mutual funds that blame their poor performance on restrictive charters will say, "Hey, it is really hard to change, we need a big shareholder vote to change a charter." Better just to emphasize the long term!
To which I say, give me a break. If you tell your shareholders that you want to give managers the flexibility to avoid big losses, just check here, I don't think you are running much of a risk that the shareholders will rebel.
Right now, at this pace they are going to vote with their feet and wipe you out anyway. Why not just junk the dogma?
It makes no sense to me.
: Hope your daughters are at work today. Mine are!
And don't forget to check out our
streaming quotes ... best on the Web, including all our competitors.
James J. Cramer is a director and co-founder of TheStreet.com. He contributes daily market commentary for TheStreet.com's sites and serves as an adviser to the company's CEO. Outside contributing columnists for TheStreet.com and RealMoney.com, including Cramer, may, from time to time, write about stocks in which they have a position. In such cases, appropriate disclosure is made. While he cannot provide personalized investment advice or recommendations, he invites you to send comments on his column to