Here is an interesting tidbit for you concerning the judgment of the fund investors for American Funds: not one fund ever had a single share of Enron, WorldCom or any of the dot-com stocks.
I realize that this is supposed to make me feel good about American funds. And, I'll admit, I can see why a fund company would never have bought into Enron or Worldcom. But NONE of the dot-com stocks? Excuse me? So, were they morons, or are you just lying? Let's check.
American Funds has a "New Economy Growth Fund". For those of you not familiar with stock investing, this would generally be code for "I jumped onto the Internet Bubble." Among their major holdings today are AOL Time Warner and Yahoo! I'm not entirely sure by what standards Yahoo! doesn't qualify as a dot-com stock. Maybe because it doesn't have ".com" at the end? How about UnitedGlobal.Com, then? Would that count? That's on their list of holdings at year-end 2002.
So, is the person who wrote this bit of tripe an idiot, or does he just think I am? I think this is the least reassuring bit of reassurance I've ever received. I feel insulted and about sick. I think I'll email American Funds about this. I really hope this is just some invention from my HR department and not a press release from AF.
And, quite frankly, it wouldn't make me feel any better if it was true. There were many points at which it was an excellent idea to hold dot-com stocks, and not all of them for speculative reasons. Yes, the dot-com bubble was a bubble and its stocks were grotesquely overvalued for a long time. But that doesn't mean there were no dot-com stocks that were ever promising and worth buying. Sheesh.