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.
I know that Seafarer's website states that SFGIX/SIGIX are closed, but I just noticed that it appears that you can purchase them through Vanguard & Schwab (not on Fidelity though) - have these funds re-opened?
I logged onto my account, and then searched SIGIX. Click the hyperlink, and the fund page shows up with option to trade; nothing about the fund being closed to investors.
In Schwab under 'status' it says 'available to existing share holders'. I believe that infers it is closed to new investors. I don't think this has changed. @deeppizza , what on the Schwab site makes you think you can buy if not already invested?
MIkeM, you're correct. When I got far enough to make a trade to the confirmation page, I get an error message which states that it's closed to new investors. Sorry for the confusion.
@MFO Members: They say timing is everything. It all depends what time period you invested with Mr. Foster. Year-to-date, three years, not so good. Five years a lot better. Regards, Ted
'16 and '17 underperformance is fine as I'd expect him to lag in stronger years. The underperformance YTD is disappointing.
I do think, to some extent, he's been a victim of his own success. He took quite a bit of money in early then subsequently opened another fund, which I think was a bad idea... Too soon.
I see no evidence that total assets is the culprit for SFGIX under-performance. 2.2B is not at all to high for an EM fund concentrated on large caps. Look at the T. Rowe Price fund, PREMX. It has 5.5B in assets. 2.2B for a large cap fund should not be a problem IMHO.
Read what Foster says in his reviews. He is pretty honest about the funds short-falls and under-performance. Basically, wrong bets on stock picks, countries and sectors. He talks about how he thought he positioned the fund for downside protection - and it didn't pan out. Quite honest.
The Fund’s poor performance relative to the benchmark stemmed from several holdings that produced acceptable financial results, but which disappointed some segment of investors (but not Seafarer). Many of these companies operate in the information technology sector, either in software or manufacturing: Venture of Singapore (a contract manufacturer of high-end electronic devices); TOTVS of Brazil (a commercial software company); and Delta of Taiwan (a diversified manufacturer of electronic systems and components). These three companies saw their share prices slump sharply in response to passable (but apparently disappointing) results. In all three cases, I believe the market’s response was grossly over-exaggerated.
So as long as someone is honest about why they lost your money you're okay with it?
His philosophy should protect capital in down markets, which it had done historically. This year not so much. All I'm saying is I think the new fund, asset growth and overall business growth has hurt (he's taken his eye off the ball). Consequently, I'd rather see him focus on the strategy versus growing more. The level today is more than sufficient for the resources at the firm.
It is fascinating to me to read that investments which do not pan out, or not quickly enough, are somehow the result of defocusing, as though effort and will and hard thinking and other notionally causal behaviors can and will preclude outcomes like @MikeM quoted. That's why I wondered if he doubled down on those overreacted-to stocks. I have been reading Foster for years, back to Matthews, interesting guy. But some months, and longer, the bear eats you.
So as long as someone is honest about why they lost your money you're okay with it?
@JoJo26, yes I am ok with it because his long term tract record at Matthews and Seafarer warrant that. Do I think a fund manager isn't going to make a miscalculated stock choice? Find me one that doesn't have a miscue. They all do.
Your opinion on bloated assets is valid I suppose, but nothing substantial behind that opinion. Just a stab in the dark I'd say.
>> His philosophy should protect capital in down markets
Try going to the Seafarer website. This is explained in a video interview also. A manager who won't admit his mistakes is the one I am not ok with...
Andrew's latest shareholder letter is (perhaps too long but) informative. At base, he thinks the ground has shifted in the EMs with China's rise as a sort of stabilizing force. That meant that the "Steady Eddy" stocks that are the centerpieces of the SFGIX portfolio are marginally less valuable: they lose too much upside for the downside protection they offer. He's making modest changes in process that will favor stocks on the tails of the growth-value distribution. Not major shifts, he stresses, but more appreciation for their potential contribution.
Might be a coincidence but the fund has had top 10% returns over the summer.
Comments
p.s., prefer thin pizza
Regards,
Ted
I do think, to some extent, he's been a victim of his own success. He took quite a bit of money in early then subsequently opened another fund, which I think was a bad idea... Too soon.
Read what Foster says in his reviews. He is pretty honest about the funds short-falls and under-performance. Basically, wrong bets on stock picks, countries and sectors. He talks about how he thought he positioned the fund for downside protection - and it didn't pan out. Quite honest. https://www.seafarerfunds.com/funds/ogi/portfolio-review#performance-review
His philosophy should protect capital in down markets, which it had done historically. This year not so much. All I'm saying is I think the new fund, asset growth and overall business growth has hurt (he's taken his eye off the ball). Consequently, I'd rather see him focus on the strategy versus growing more. The level today is more than sufficient for the resources at the firm.
it does say growth in the name
I wonder if he bought more of those three companies.
You clearly are not educated on the Seafarer approach.
In any case it invests in EM; who would think "philosophy should protect capital in down markets" of any such vehicle?
It is fascinating to me to read that investments which do not pan out, or not quickly enough, are somehow the result of defocusing, as though effort and will and hard thinking and other notionally causal behaviors can and will preclude outcomes like @MikeM quoted. That's why I wondered if he doubled down on those overreacted-to stocks.
I have been reading Foster for years, back to Matthews, interesting guy. But some months, and longer, the bear eats you.
Your opinion on bloated assets is valid I suppose, but nothing substantial behind that opinion. Just a stab in the dark I'd say. Try going to the Seafarer website. This is explained in a video interview also. A manager who won't admit his mistakes is the one I am not ok with...
Andrew's latest shareholder letter is (perhaps too long but) informative. At base, he thinks the ground has shifted in the EMs with China's rise as a sort of stabilizing force. That meant that the "Steady Eddy" stocks that are the centerpieces of the SFGIX portfolio are marginally less valuable: they lose too much upside for the downside protection they offer. He's making modest changes in process that will favor stocks on the tails of the growth-value distribution. Not major shifts, he stresses, but more appreciation for their potential contribution.
Might be a coincidence but the fund has had top 10% returns over the summer.
Back to waiting,
David