Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

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.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

for August: Grandeur Peak plans, RiverPark answers, ARIVX inflows, a tepid T Rowe, and Marathon

Which is to say, my August commentary is up, with an archive link.

The old Books page is now an Amazon store. We'll be grafting in your original book recommendations bit and bit, and happy to hear more.

Chip and Accipter say they're getting close on The Falcon's Eye and have put in a huge number of hours on it.

Special thanks to Catch22 who's been doing good work in flagging the spammers; I croaked four on the morning of August 1st alone and Chip has been catching them regularly while I was traveling to/from a somber service back east.


  • edited August 2011
    Hi David.....Good August Commentary! Just wondering though - it was mentioned in the Aug commentary....

    "From inception in late 2008 to July 2011, WAGOX turned a $10,000 investment into $23,500 while an investment in its average peer would have led to a $17,000 portfolio. Put another way, WAGOX earned $13,500 or 92% more than its average peer managed."

    Unless I'm missing something, the math seems to be off?

  • Hi, Kenster!

    WAGOX added $13,500 to the value of your original investment.

    The average global fund added $7,000 to the value of your original investment.

    By my (admitted shaky) counting, $13,500 is 92% more than $7000, so I described the difference as 92%. I can still change the phrasing if you think there's a clearer way to say it.

    As ever,

  • edited August 2011
    Hi David, what I meant was this...

    If WAGOX turned $10,000 into $23,500 and its avg peer returned only $17,000 --- then that is a $6,500 difference "more than its average peer managed."

    The $13,500 gain is based on your original $10,000 investment, but the gain over its average peer managed is only $6,500.

  • edited August 2011
    Thanks for update to RiverPark Short Term High Yield (RPHYX).
    Took a position in this unusual fund after being introduced here,
    NAV continues to be extremely stable while (theoretically) avoiding
    most interest rate risk and credit risk. Practice may vary from theory,
    see triple-A securitizations eventuating in half the global debt issuance
    being riskless AAA followed by misplaced shirts. Global debt issuance is
    again over half riskless triple-A, sovereign. To avoid misplacement a strait-jacket
    that buckles in the back and keeps hands off keyboard is recommended.

    RiverNorth Doubleline Strategic Inc (RNSIX) continues to do well with both
    yield and probably from the closed end fund sleeve, gains.

  • Reply to @Kenster1_GlobalValue: Confused about the confusion. WAGOX adds $13,500 to your original $10,000 versus peers would have added $7,000 to your original $10,000. Right: you net $6500 more with WAGOX. So WAGOX returns the $7000 typical of its peer group plus 92% more than that (i.e, another $6500).
  • David,

    Are you going to make the FA fund profiles available or integrated via Funds page? While reading your comments on ARIVX, I wanted to check what you had written for WSCVX and I could not find the old fund profiles by going through main pages of your side and I had to use Google to locate ( which is at:

    I wish you could make them available easier.
  • Reply to @Investor: The key has been finding time to update the older profiles before making them visible. I'll move WSCVX up and try to get it posted this week. I'm also set to talk with John about his new Select Value fund.

    If there are other profiles that folks would like to see, I'll try to update them (not a full rewrite, but corrections on assets, expenses, performance and so on) and make the visible.

  • Reply to @David_Snowball:

    The older profiles require only a couple simple edits to fix the embedded links. Otherwise, they are looking good enough.

    Even without edits, if you first simply link the fund profiles to your fund page, they would be acceptable and we can update them in small batches. Right now, they are kind of orphaned which is not good.

    Finally, I can volunteer to make the edits so embedded links are not broken. You can zip them up and I can provide you updated ones back as another zip file.
  • David,
    I don't understand what the sticking points were that made the Grandeur Peak folks go off on their own. They wanted a little more freedom and a little lower ER. If the "break" was as amicable as it was made to seem, I would think Wasatch would have just allowed them to do that? Any insight?

  • Reply to @00BY: It's a good question. I poked at it a bit during the interview. The best answer I got was "Wasatch was very accommodating to Robert, but it was always his dream to have his own firm and his own fund." While that could be an evasion, I don't have any evidence that it is an evasion. So I'm taking it at face value.
  • Reply to @David_Snowball: Sounds to me like he is putting his dreams ahead of his shareholders.
Sign In or Register to comment.