Time to Bail out of Perkins Midcap Value (JMCVX) JMCVX is a conservative (M* rates it low risk), broadly diversified (almost 100 securities) fund that sits on the value/blend border (oscillating from year to year), tending toward large cap. It is not focused on midcap value, it just averages out that way.
How much of this is important to you in seeking a replacement? FSMVX matches most attributes - its portfolio leans a bit more toward large cap, and a bit more toward value, but both in minor ways. More significant is that its risk is rated average - still not a very risky fund.
VASVX is also slightly more value oriented, though with an average market cap matching JMCVX. M* rates its risk as below average - not quite as low as JMCVX, but in the "next" ballpark. Mona is correct that Vanguard recently added Penza Investment Management recently, but Donald G. Smith and Richard L Greenberg (of Donald Smith & Co.) came on board a decade ago, just three years after Mark Giambrone.
If you want to get a sense of how Barrow/Giambrone work with Penza and his team, you might look at American Beacon Mid Cap Value (AMPAX). From the fund inception until 2014, these two teams were responsible for the day-to-day management of that fund. ISTM that this is a respectable, though not awe inspiring fund - good risk/return, similar attributes to JMCVX, average risk and a bit pricy (compared with the other funds mentioned). Not a fund I'd look at to purchase, but one to see how these teams work together in a co-managed fund.
HIMVX isn't as close a match as the other funds. Its risk is higher (above average per M*) which IMHO goes along with a deep value leaning (vs. sitting on the value/blend line as do the other funds). On the other hand, it has somewhat more securities in its portfolio (about 175). Overall, it gives a bit greater variety in company cap sizes, and a bit less along the value/growth axis. While it has done well in the past few years (with markets soaring), its ten year record is almost identical to AMPAX - and management has been pretty stable for both funds over that period of time (making the comparison valid). Another indicator that the fund is more risky/volatile than the others - better in good times, worse in bad ones.
All of this gets me back to the question - what are you looking for in a replacement? If you're looking for a fund that spans a broad swath of companies, then a fund narrowly focused on mid cap value, whether active or index like VOE/VMVAX isn't going to do it.
Are you willing to look outside of Fidelity, or are you at least open to the idea of doing a move all at once (to facilitate purchasing TF funds at Fidelity)? In that case, you might also consider DHMIX (TF at Fidelity, more compact portfolio, leaning more toward small cap), or VETAX (NTF at Schwab, and a somewhat more focused market cap range, though not nearly as narrow as VOE/VMVAX).
Or if all you're looking for is a better fund, nominally labeled MCV, you might even look at FLPSX. A bit of a contrarian play in the sense that the fund is nearly a world fund, and the US market has been doing much better over the past few years.
Expense Ratio: SFGIX There are theoretical numbers and actual numbers. M* publishes both on a fund's
expenses page, but uses the actual on a fund's
summary page.
By "actual" I mean actual dollars and percentages spent by the fund, as reported in its latest (semi)annual report. By "theoretical" I mean the prospective expenses as speculated by its
prospectus.
It is worth noting that all the figures incorporate fee waivers. So both the "actual" ER of 1.4% and the "theoretical" ER of 1.2
5% are subsidized numbers. The "true" "theoretical" ER (per prospectus) is 1.66%.
The lower number (1.2
5% vs. the older 1.4%) going forward is a result of a reduced cap put into place by Seafarer last Sept 1. It does not necessarily represent a reduction in "true" expenses. On the other hand, Seafarer did reduce its declared management fees by 10 basis points at that same time - that represents a true reduction in ER.
7 Muni-Bond ETFs That Stay On Track FYI: Whether yields are 2% or 7%, investors will keep buying municipal bonds.
Except one major hurdle for ETF providers has been that muni-bond indexes are not always dynamic enough for the ETF to track. Because pricing mechanisms for some municipals can be difficult, especially if issues are small and thinly traded, investors must trust that prices reasonably reflect reality. This inefficiency can lead to drift from published NAV or premiums and discounts.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/7-muni-bond-etfs-that-stay-on-track-2015-04-04/print
Leaders & Laggards -- First-Quarter 2015
Expense Ratio: SFGIX Again, (and as usual) the monthly April Commentary was a great read. Thank you. Along the way, attention was paid to Seafarer. Did I miss it, or was the ER given as Morningstar has it, rather than the CORRECT ER, at 1.25%...?
Morningstar has the SFGIX ER at 1.4%. I'll be on the road, or else I'd join the Call with Andrew Foster, coming up. :)
