Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!ekrell
From: ekrell@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.invest
Subject: Re: Business Week's Mutual Fund Survey
Message-ID: <9543@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 2-Mar-86 14:44:32 EST
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.9543
Posted: Sun Mar  2 14:44:32 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Mar-86 02:19:30 EST
References: <3298@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: ekrell@ucla-cs.UUCP (Eduardo Krell)
Distribution: net
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 14

In article <3298@sun.uucp> tut@sun.uucp (Bill Tuthill) writes:
>
>Among the low-performers were
>Vanguard's perennially pathetic Wellesley and Wellington funds
>(with 10-year averages of 14.1% and 14.6% respectively)

Bear in mind that these are so-called balanced funds, investing in both
bonds and stocks. Wellesley invests 65% in bonds and 35% in stocks while
Wellington invests 65% in stocks and 35% in bonds. It is unfair to compare
them with stock funds since their investment objective (and risk involved)
is different. Among balanced funds, these two perform way above average.
-- 
    Eduardo Krell               UCLA Computer Science Department
    ekrell@ucla-locus.arpa      ..!{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!ekrell