Value Added
American Funds Bounce Back (Sort of)
The number two fund family, behind Vanguard, boasts some superb funds. But others haven't done so well in recent years.
By Steven Goldberg, Contributing Columnist, Kiplinger.com
January 24, 2012
- Comments
- Email This Article
- Print This Article
- Order a Reprint
Advertisement
Once upon a time, you could throw a dart at a list of the American funds, and you were almost certain to hit a bull's-eye. During the 2000-02 bear market, in particular, the American funds gained a reputation as unsinkable.
SEE ALSO: 9 Rules for Picking Mutual Funds
American's assets peaked in October 2007 at $1.2 trillion, making it the nation's largest fund family at the time (if you excluded assets in money-market funds). Then came the 2007-09 bear market. American's stock funds didn't do notably worse than average during the disaster. But some funds were hurt by big weightings in foreign stocks. Worse still, American's bond funds did lose more than average in the bear market. These, of course, were the very funds investors had counted on to safeguard their assets.
American's inability to sidestep the 2007-09 inferno shocked many investors, who had been assured by their advisers that the funds would protect them in downturns (American funds are sold only through third parties). "The funds were put out there as failsafe investments," says Kevin McDevitt, who covers the fund family for Morningstar.
Nearly three years since the bear market ended in March 2009, some of the American funds have regained their sparkle. But others are still struggling. Overall, the funds' performance last year, while decent, was nothing to write home about. The average American fund, calculates Morningstar, finished in the top 39% of its peer group. Over the past three years, the average American fund ranked in the 43rd percentile, and over the past five years, they were in the 46th percentile -- that is, a bit better than average. So performance is getting better, but it's still nowhere near as strong as it was in the old days.
That said, the American funds remain special, in my view. For starters, American's fees are as low as they come for actively managed funds. Beyond that, the parent firm, Los Angeles-based Capital Research and Management, boasts 227 analysts and "portfolio counselors" who are a product of an investment culture that emphasizes long-term returns. Each counselor manages a portion of one or more funds. A manager's compensation is based on how his or her picks do over four- and eight-year periods. Research analysts also manage a portion of each fund.
In the latter part of the last decade, when a cascade of new money threatened the firm with asset bloat, American funds split its investment arm into two halves -- each with exactly the same mission. It established two separate trading desks, and generally prohibited analysts and portfolio counselors on one team from talking stocks with those on the other. It was -- and remains -- an expensive undertaking, but one whose dividends will likely be realized for years to come. "You get more give and take and better ideas from smaller groups," says Chuck Freadhoff, a spokesman for the funds.
My favorite American fund and one of my two top picks among load funds is Washington Mutual (symbol WMFFX). The fund invests almost exclusively in large, high-quality, dividend-paying U.S. companies. The expense ratio for the fund's F-2 shares (the class you should always ask your adviser to buy for you) is a mere 0.41%.
Capital Research opened its first foreign office in 1962. Because of the firm's long experience investing overseas, I tend to favor American funds that focus on foreign stocks. One is New World (NFFFX), another of my favorite load funds. The fund owns a slug of emerging markets bonds and invests roughly half of the remaining assets in emerging markets stocks and the rest in multinationals that are doing lots of business in emerging markets. Its F2 shares cost just 0.76% a year.
Other fine choices are Capital Income Builder F-2 (CAIFX) and EuroPacific Growth F-2 (AEPFX). The former invests in stocks and bonds around the world, yields 3.8% and charges 0.41% annually. The latter, which charges just 0.59% annually, invests only in foreign stocks.
But I think you should look elsewhere for small-company funds. American offers only one, Smallcap World (SMCFX), and it hasn't performed especially well. Funds that invest in small-capitalization stocks tend to do better with small asset bases. In addition, American's high-yield bond funds haven't done well in recent years.
Less-than-stellar performance in recent years has led to an outflow of assets that I think is overdone. Since their peak, the American funds have shrunk by 29%, to $854 billion, mostly because of an exodus by investors (American remains the largest provider of adviser-sold open-end mutual funds and is second overall, behind only Vanguard). The exodus, strangely, has actually accelerated since the end of the bear market. Growth Fund of America, once the nation's largest fund, lost $33 billion in assets last year -- more than any other fund family.
McDevitt says the redemptions haven't hurt morale at the American funds. Traditionally, it has been rare for people to leave the American funds to go elsewhere. That hasn't changed. "Things are fine on the investment side," McDevitt says. Investors should take heed.
See page 2 for Steve Goldberg's earlier take on American funds during the Great Recession.
Tags:
Topics:
- Comments
- RSS
Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy


Reader Comments (13)
Posted by: former employee at 03/17/2009 07:31:12 PM
I have been buying American Funds for years. And I hope their long-term future doesn't differ much from their past. ... I have to point it out that during the past few months, the company has gone through a major layoff -- after a few years of very aggressive recruitment with the means of recruitment booths everywhere, hiring agents, $5000 referral bonus for each hired person, and loosened hiring procedure.
Posted by: Steve Goldberg at 03/20/2009 11:37:56 AM
This is the author of the column ... As far as aggressive recruiting, I've known people who've fairly recently gone through the 20-plus interview process. If you'd like to discuss it, please e-mail me, former employee. I'd like to hear more. sgoldberg@kiplinger.com
Posted by: Les at 03/27/2009 07:10:14 PM
I have been a customer for American Funds for years, I couldn't say enough good about the advice I have received from my advisor. At least I still have money left after the last 2 years, much better then the federal TSP that I had invested in.
Posted by: Nancy at 04/01/2009 12:30:15 AM
We have had a very bad experience with American Funds, no matter what mutual fund, they all went down, immediately. ...This entire situation with the market is very disheartening, because every one that has invested in an IRA for their retirement needs their money....we will be lucky if we can retire at all. We need a bailout.
Posted by: Jack Novak at 04/26/2009 08:22:57 AM
I luckily sold before it got too bad, but I had no advice from my advisor. I regard the whole system as a scam.
Posted by: WRK at 04/29/2009 04:10:16 PM
We have been with American for a number of years..Good results so far......But you must pay attention to what is going on and protect your self by calling your F.A. when you have a question ....
Posted by: Scammed by Advisor at 04/29/2009 05:44:34 PM
Be wary of advisor recommended front end loads. I signed up with advisor a few years ago who put me in American which I agree is a good fund company. However, when the market crashed in Oct/Nov 08, my advisor didn't call until Feb 09. He only called to do his obligatory review of 09 results. He got his commissions (my $$)and I got no follow up advice. Now I fully understand why he recommended the front load instead of back load funds. Big mistake on my behalf but lesson learned. My exisistng money is still with him but he won't be getting any new.
Posted by: Dan at 04/29/2009 07:53:01 PM
There is a whole other way to look at this. You have not lost any shares and you have the opportunity to buy more shares at half the cost. Unless you are retiring soon why would you complain about your portfolio. Do you believe that it will never go back up? Stocks are the only product people do not want to buy when its on sale.
Posted by: L. Minier at 05/18/2009 06:00:29 PM
Yes, it's too bad that when the market starts to go down advisors don't call to ask us what we would like to do as they have an aggressive attitude that the market will always so up and "You want to be there when it goes up" and then of course this time everything went down. There should be better communication with investors. My fund lost way too much so I moved it on my own and put it all in treasuries as I couldn't take it anymore. Lots of regrets as I called him when things started to go down. One more thing...the comment, "Well if we could time the market............. and "You should have checked your statements.......Oh well lots of losses but I told a friend of mine I should have sheltered monies because Bush is President. Should have followed my intuition. These derivatives and such were done under his watch and they had a heyday with his administration and Glass-Stegall. Wall Street got to do what they wanted. SAD, SAD, SAD, all the retirees will never see the light of day. Of course the advisors think the market will go up, I am still the skeptic. People now want Obama to turn it around in one hundred days and Bush had 8 years to run us into the ground. And the Republcans wonder why we are still bashing Bush, we need to, to get rid of the frustration. But I remain hopeful as long as there isn't a Republcan as President, Specter has it right.
Posted by: Sue Smith at 05/27/2009 08:57:32 AM
To L Minier...Glass-Stegall was repealed by Clinton, not Bush. How do you think the Clinton's got to be millionaires?
Posted by: Limoman at 05/30/2009 02:20:03 PM
Dear Mr. Goldberg...call a " Spade a Spade' ... AF lost over $375 Billion in assets? Good Lord! IMBW but I was told the main reason AF got so big, was it pays a nice Commission to those Advisors.. and based upon those loads, I can see why It got "in the door" of alot of #401k and other Pension Plans...It's a Shame.. Why They also couldn't also offer Index Funds as well.. But they don't pay as much in commissions, do they? It's all Greed as far as I'm concerned that led everyone down this Path and why Those Advisors are in Hot Water... It's the same in the Insurance Business.. Agents want to sell you only the Plans that pay THEM the Highest Commissions, regardless if it cost more or Provides less.. I think People just ought to bail out of all this Stuff and just Own Indexing BONDS to send a message to Wall Street and Those Advisors..And Shut down those #401k plans that won't offer Index funds...60 Min TV show had a program about this and How the Fees for #401k Funds can run as high as over 12% and it's all but impossible to find those Hidden fee's ...! And they call it Capitalisum?...Many of those "Advisors" are Insurance -Used car Salesmen in disguise... And AF knew Being in International Stocks was a Very Risky Bet ( even Moringstar and other services said so for Yrs. and AF Investors? You ought to Sue them for negligence! You may not win, but will sure send a strong message! And Using the Excuse of "Everything Lost $"? Is BALONEY! Treasuries, AAA Corp. Bonds, GNMA's nd several other Bond Funds Did quite Well in 08' and how come Hussman's HSTRX Fund Made 6% in 08' as a 20/80 Bal. Fund? And why doesn't AF change their Gudielines to allow such Flexibility to reverse Course when they Knew Darn well "the Big One' was comming? Ans? = $ /money..for both the Advisors and AF.. They make more From Selling investors Stocks/stock Funds than they do on Bonds.. Bet a Fed. Grand Jury to See Where each of the AF Execs. kept their $ would really open the doors? AF investors ought to be calling Their Employers/Advisors and AF to task and put them on the Stand to Justify what they did leading upto 2008... And Also justify Why They Still got paid Big Salaries and Bonus's!
Posted by: JOE BURKS at 06/04/2009 06:12:14 PM
...LIMOMAN. You better get busy, there are about 8000 funds out there. Have you checked out your cost on a back loaded fund, when the percentage is taken on ALL of YOUR accumulated investment? For the time it took to write your...note, you could have bought some great funds at about a 40% discount, unless of course you don't think anything is ever going up again. (I) have a friend like you--all he does is moan. He just inherited a bunch of money, called me for free input. I suggested he look and see where and how the money was grown. He did, the deceased relative started investing in mutual (loaded) back in the 1950's. But all he does is groan about the possibility of loss. But guess what, he sure accepted his share of over $4,000,000.00...
Posted by: Ted at 03/17/2010 01:04:20 PM
I have all the funds mentioned above with exception to the Capital Income Builder (CABIX). Needless to say, I have been impressed with the growth I have seen in my portfolio. I was bought out by my previous employer and rolled all my assets over into American Funds by the advice of my "F&I Gu"y. For three years I had nothing but growth up until Sept. 2008. In June of 2008 my portfolio worth was slightly under a 1/2 million dollars. Not bad for a guy who worked almost 30yrs. in the transportation industry, but by Sept of that year I lost and lost a lot. Aside from being told to continue contributions to my portfolio, I am considering diversifying 20% of it into "Precious Metals". My question is: Would 20% of my assets be too much or too little to invest at this time....? Also, my portfolio is nowhere near to what it was back in June 2008, but I do see growth with great concern that the U.S. Dollar is being strangled slowly of its value and flexibility, and that to me spells DANGER.