I lost 2 funds - STHBX and STHYX (Wells Fargo Advantage) Many other posts have compared ZEOIX to RPHYX. Now, comparing SSTHX and RPHYX for the past three years, we have the typical $10000 at $10,733 for RHYPX, and $10,663 for SSTHX, pretty much a dead heat. In this year's difficult market though, it's 0.76% return for RPHYX, and -1.30% for SSTHX, about a 2% difference in favor of RPHYX. While I'm certainly less than thrilled at the deterioration in the RPHYX NAV, it would still seem to be a better place than SSHTX at least for now.
Looking at ZEOIX, it's doing quite well this year, at a 2.58% return, and with $10,966 for three years. Unfortunately, it's not available NTF at Schwab, as Press notes. Guess I'll have to stick with RPHYX for a while.
Champlain's Emerging Markets Fund
RPHYX / RSIVX: New commentary explains mistakes that resulted in credit losses Thanks to all the posters. After reviewing them and the 3rd quarter commentary, I decided to reduce my allocation to RPHYX. I now have $2 in ZEOIX for each $1 in RPHYX. However, as I had expected RSIVX to be higher risk and more volatile, I am inclined to leave that investment alone for another year to see how it performs going forward (assuming no more self inflicted wounds come to light during that period).
Lewis Braham: Mutual Fund Fees: How Low Is “Low”? I want to decide where I am going to expend my energy
Fund A
Assets: $100B
ER reported: 0.5%
Avg Annual Return: 10%
Fund B
Assets: $1B
ER reported: 1.5%
Avg Annual Return: 10%
Returns are always after expenses. I care about who makes how much money why now? I make 10% in each fund. If either fund is misrepresenting expenses and investors would have ended up with higher return, then all crusaders can go complain to justice department.
25 years back, when information was not forthcoming may be this makes some sense. In today's time with the internet, every fund investor knows all things remaining the same, go with the lower ER fund. If you are going with higher ER fund, do it for a reason - lower asset base, better fiduciary management, etc. etc. "Investors need to know how fund expenses are being paid and who they are being paid to". No, they don't. Why? Because they cannot do diddly squat about it.
I would like Jack Bogle to give interview to someone else besides M*. Or I would like him to ask Christine Benz WTF one ANALyst or another at M* marries American Funds every other week. All well wishers of fund investors, please stop telling investors what they should do and go tell/appeal to those who make money off those investors.
Lewis Braham: Mutual Fund Fees: How Low Is “Low”? Hi Guys,
MFOer Bee ended his/her submittal with the following aside: “It would be interesting to look more closely where these fund manager invest their profits since most fund managers commonly don't invest in the own mutual funds.”
This closure is definitely more than an aside. It is an important indicator when selecting a mutual fund. It might not rank as highly as a low expense ratio criterion, but it is a significant signal. Having significant skin in the game addresses commitment.
Bee is correct when he/she observes that most fund managers do not have that commitment. Although the percentages are not compelling, a surprising large number of fund managers do taste their own cooking. According to a Morningstar study, that number is in the vicinity of about One thousand loyal partakers of their own cooking. Good for them, not so good for those who abstain.
Here is a Link to a recent WSJ article by Liz Moyer that summarized some findings from the Morningstar study that was completed by Rus Kinnel:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/find-mutual-fund-managers-who-eat-their-own-cooking-1433518014One shocking statistic that was uncovered by Kinnel’s research is the following: “Balanced funds, which own both stocks and bonds, exhibited the starkest difference in performance in the Morningstar study. The success rate for balanced-fund managers with no money invested was 32%, compared with 85% for managers betting more than $
1 million.” That’s quite a jump in performance success when contrasted against a respectable benchmark.
Indeed, skin in the game is a primary motivator and a measure of a fund manager’s commitment to the investment policies that is practiced.
Best Wishes.
