Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Anyone ever heard of this fund? I just happened to be searching Vanguard's page for small cap funds and saw this pop up. Pretty good record thus far. Looked good on the MFO Risk profile as well.
And "nuts." I wrote a response a couple hours ago, hit "post" and ran off to a meeting. Upon return, I discovered no-post. Nuts.
GLDSX has all of the trappings of a friends and family fund. Golden Asset Management runs 10 strategies, including this one, through separately managed accounts. They've got about $6.5 billion in AUM. This appears to be the only one also available as a '40 Act fund.
The small core strategy launched in 2002 and claim they're managing about $300 million in the strategy. Why "claim"? Because the performance composite for the strategy lists a composite value of $87 million. Even if you count the fund's $98 million separately, you're still under $200 million.
In any case, it's a focused, even-weight, sector-neutral portfolio. 60 stocks with a 1.67% target weighting. Over the past three and five years, it's beaten the Russell 2000 by 250-300 bps/year. That said, returns tend to be lumpy and performance strikes me as unpredictable. That's not automatically bad but since I don't know why they do what they do, it's hard to know what to make of them.
I did write Golden today and I'll happily share whatever I hear back.
Yep. The past five years have certainly been ... uhhh, golden for them. Here's their 10-year record versus their peer group:
2006: (4.2) - that is, they trailed the pack by 4.2% that year 2007: (2.1) 2008: 0.1 - that is, 0.1% better than their peers 2009: (17.7) 2010: (2.9) 2011: 5.4 2012: (1.0) 2013: (2.2) 2014: 8.5 2015: 6.4
So, they've trailed in six of the past 10 years by 1.0 - 17.7%. They've led in four years, including 2015 YTD, by 0.1 - 8.5%. Happily for them, most of the good years are appearing in the 1, 3, and 5 year windows.
And "nuts." I wrote a response a couple hours ago, hit "post" and ran off to a meeting. Upon return, I discovered no-post. Nuts.
GLDSX has all of the trappings of a friends and family fund. Golden Asset Management runs 10 strategies, including this one, through separately managed accounts. They've got about $6.5 billion in AUM. This appears to be the only one also available as a '40 Act fund.
The small core strategy launched in 2002 and claim they're managing about $300 million in the strategy. Why "claim"? Because the performance composite for the strategy lists a composite value of $87 million. Even if you count the fund's $98 million separately, you're still under $200 million.
In any case, it's a focused, even-weight, sector-neutral portfolio. 60 stocks with a 1.67% target weighting. Over the past three and five years, it's beaten the Russell 2000 by 250-300 bps/year. That said, returns tend to be lumpy and performance strikes me as unpredictable. That's not automatically bad but since I don't know why they do what they do, it's hard to know what to make of them.
I did write Golden today and I'll happily share whatever I hear back.
As ever,
David
Hi David !
Thanks for the information ! I visited their website and found it to be lacking in some information. I could not find the Top 10 holdings, among other things. I look forward to reading any additional information they have to share !
Yep. The past five years have certainly been ... uhhh, golden for them. Here's their 10-year record versus their peer group:
2006: (4.2) - that is, they trailed the pack by 4.2% that year 2007: (2.1) 2008: 0.1 - that is, 0.1% better than their peers 2009: (17.7) 2010: (2.9) 2011: 5.4 2012: (1.0) 2013: (2.2) 2014: 8.5 2015: 6.4
So, they've trailed in six of the past 10 years by 1.0 - 17.7%. They've led in four years, including 2015 YTD, by 0.1 - 8.5%. Happily for them, most of the good years are appearing in the 1, 3, and 5 year windows.
David
One thing I did notice is that this fund is very tax efficient for a small cap fund. The tax cost ratio for the fund over the 1, 3 and 5 year periods is 0.06, 0.22 and 0.13, respectively. That's very low.
GLDSX has all of the trappings of a friends and family fund. Golden Asset Management runs 10 strategies, including this one, through separately managed accounts. They've got about $6.5 billion in AUM. This appears to be the only one also available as a '40 Act fund. ... David
Are you sure about that last part?
I recently ran a screen for large cap blend funds that beat the S&P 500 over the past 3,5, and 10 years (don't ask why). One of the dozen or so funds that popped out was GLDLX. I remember it because I'd never heard of Golden either.
Anyway, according to the SAI, each of these two funds "is a separate series of the Trust. The Trust is an open-end investment management company organized under Delaware law as a statutory trust on August 29, 1995." I don't see anything in the SAI that differentiates the legal status of one series (fund) from the other. They both (or neither) seem to be '40 Act funds.
Finally had time to take a breath (yesterday was really full) and check. msf is quite right: two funds, one large cap (GLDLX) and one small cap. Large Cap Core is steadier with regard to relative performance. Both are ten year old, five star, $100 million funds with $2500 minimums. Small Cap Core is a Great Owl fund and it's on our Honor Roll. Large Cap Core has "better numbers" (lower standard deviation, smaller max drawdown, higher Sharpe ratio and so on) but that might just reflect the adventures in small cap land.
Unless someone can tell how the heck one invests in them, this is just noise. I think you can only purchase through financial advisors, or have to pay commission. Impractical for do it yourself investors unless they go NTF, which is unlikely methinks.
I have an account with Vanguard and my transaction fee charge is $20.00. It can go as high as $35.00, depending on the amount of assets held at the brokerage.
The fund may be purchased at Scottrade for $17. The minimums for both a regular and an IRA are $2500 and $100 for additional purchases. The fund is not registered in all states but is registered in most of them.
Here are the risk/return metrics for GLDSX through August since inception and across various evaluation periods. (The screenshot is from our beta MFO Premium site.)
David points out that GLDSX trails the pack at the 10 year mark, which is reflected in the lifetime metrics below and across the current market cycle since November 2007.
Its performance here is another example of a fund that gets recognized for its shorter term performance (eg., Great Owl and Honor Roll designations), while the longer term performance may be lacking. We've discussed other such funds before on the board.
As a reminder, Honor Roll from the legacy Fund Alarm rating system means the fund is top quintile based on absolute return across the past 1, 3, and 5 year evaluation periods. While MFO Great Owls are top quintile based on risk adjusted returns for all evaluation periods 3 years and greater (eg., 3, 5, 10, and 20).
In this case, through August the fund is just under 10 years, so there is no 10 year ranking. But when our rankings get updated through September, the 10 year performance will be pretty poor and GLDSX will no longer get the GO designation, which is supposed to go to funds that have consistently produced top risk adjusted returns.
My rambling here is because I've been considering updating the GO designation slightly to require lifetime performance to also be top quintile if that period is less than 20 years. David Moran got me thinking along these lines a while ago...he actually has bigger issues with the designation, but he did get me thinking about imposing the lifetime constraint. As always, would appreciate any thoughts.
Comments
And "nuts." I wrote a response a couple hours ago, hit "post" and ran off to a meeting. Upon return, I discovered no-post. Nuts.
GLDSX has all of the trappings of a friends and family fund. Golden Asset Management runs 10 strategies, including this one, through separately managed accounts. They've got about $6.5 billion in AUM. This appears to be the only one also available as a '40 Act fund.
The small core strategy launched in 2002 and claim they're managing about $300 million in the strategy. Why "claim"? Because the performance composite for the strategy lists a composite value of $87 million. Even if you count the fund's $98 million separately, you're still under $200 million.
In any case, it's a focused, even-weight, sector-neutral portfolio. 60 stocks with a 1.67% target weighting. Over the past three and five years, it's beaten the Russell 2000 by 250-300 bps/year. That said, returns tend to be lumpy and performance strikes me as unpredictable. That's not automatically bad but since I don't know why they do what they do, it's hard to know what to make of them.
I did write Golden today and I'll happily share whatever I hear back.
As ever,
David
Regards,
Ted
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=GLDSX®ion=usa&culture=en_US
2006: (4.2) - that is, they trailed the pack by 4.2% that year
2007: (2.1)
2008: 0.1 - that is, 0.1% better than their peers
2009: (17.7)
2010: (2.9)
2011: 5.4
2012: (1.0)
2013: (2.2)
2014: 8.5
2015: 6.4
So, they've trailed in six of the past 10 years by 1.0 - 17.7%. They've led in four years, including 2015 YTD, by 0.1 - 8.5%. Happily for them, most of the good years are appearing in the 1, 3, and 5 year windows.
David
Thanks for the information ! I visited their website and found it to be lacking in some information. I could not find the Top 10 holdings, among other things. I look forward to reading any additional information they have to share !
Regards,
Will
I recently ran a screen for large cap blend funds that beat the S&P 500 over the past 3,5, and 10 years (don't ask why). One of the dozen or so funds that popped out was GLDLX. I remember it because I'd never heard of Golden either.
Anyway, according to the SAI, each of these two funds "is a separate series of the Trust. The Trust is an open-end investment management company organized under Delaware law as a statutory trust on August 29, 1995." I don't see anything in the SAI that differentiates the legal status of one series (fund) from the other. They both (or neither) seem to be '40 Act funds.
Don't see option to open IRA with them either.
Finally had time to take a breath (yesterday was really full) and check. msf is quite right: two funds, one large cap (GLDLX) and one small cap. Large Cap Core is steadier with regard to relative performance. Both are ten year old, five star, $100 million funds with $2500 minimums. Small Cap Core is a Great Owl fund and it's on our Honor Roll. Large Cap Core has "better numbers" (lower standard deviation, smaller max drawdown, higher Sharpe ratio and so on) but that might just reflect the adventures in small cap land.
Haven't heard back yet from the advisor.
David
http://quote.morningstar.com/fund-filing/Annual-Report/2015/6/30/t.aspx?t=GLDSX&ft=N-CSR&d=41bc71aeca8efe88b11e56b326db7c68
David points out that GLDSX trails the pack at the 10 year mark, which is reflected in the lifetime metrics below and across the current market cycle since November 2007.
Its performance here is another example of a fund that gets recognized for its shorter term performance (eg., Great Owl and Honor Roll designations), while the longer term performance may be lacking. We've discussed other such funds before on the board.
As a reminder, Honor Roll from the legacy Fund Alarm rating system means the fund is top quintile based on absolute return across the past 1, 3, and 5 year evaluation periods. While MFO Great Owls are top quintile based on risk adjusted returns for all evaluation periods 3 years and greater (eg., 3, 5, 10, and 20).
In this case, through August the fund is just under 10 years, so there is no 10 year ranking. But when our rankings get updated through September, the 10 year performance will be pretty poor and GLDSX will no longer get the GO designation, which is supposed to go to funds that have consistently produced top risk adjusted returns.
My rambling here is because I've been considering updating the GO designation slightly to require lifetime performance to also be top quintile if that period is less than 20 years. David Moran got me thinking along these lines a while ago...he actually has bigger issues with the designation, but he did get me thinking about imposing the lifetime constraint. As always, would appreciate any thoughts.