Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
One could hardly call TROW's management adroit. Compare them to Schwab as to their management abilities and you have no contest. Check out yesterday's WSJ for an article on how Schwab focuses on making their employees think out of the box. TROW did not react to online brokerage first, second or.... They have not reacted yet with Internet mutual funds. They have not been creative with the types of funds offered. The only thing that they were quick to was their providing of index funds, but then again they were certainly not first, second... Again, they are a decent investment, but if we're only going to pick 15 or so great investments, I hardly think that TROW deserves our acceptance. Even if we limit the comparisons to financial companies, TROW, IMO is not the Rule Maker. They score a 32 on the ranker. Okay, cut them some slack for subjectivity and add 7; you still get a third-tier company. There shouldn't be any third tier company in our portfolio. Keep in mind that I did use older numbers, but also keep in mind that I compared them to Franklin, which is not even a strong competitor. Thusly, making them score higher in the "Monopoly" section.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Heck, TROW doesn't even pass the $5 billion market cap threshold. Why bother with it?

And to call it a Rule Maker? What rules has T. Rowe Price made lately? If it disappeared off the face of the earth, would anyone but its mutual fund clients even notice?

Elan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Elan wrote:
>>If it disappeared off the face of the earth, would anyone but its mutual fund clients even notice?<<

That's a tremendous criteria, and one that TROW only would fail out of all of our other Rule Makers!
Print the post Back To Top