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.
In reading this months newsletter, you make mention of ETAGX as "being beyond our coverage" at $1.6 billion. Can you clarify that please.? Is $1.6 billion too big? or what? Thanks
In general, we describe our coverage universe as "all those funds that are off Morningstar's radar." In general, we're willing to initiate coverage of a way cool fund if it is: (1) less than three years old or (2) has less than $150 million AUM. That covers roughly half of all of the funds in existence (about 1300 meet the first criterion, 3100 meet the second, some meet both). Once we've started tracking a fund, we'll stick with it even as it becomes older and larger so long as it continues to do stuff that we think you need to know about.
We will make exception and write about larger funds from time to time. Two categories come to mind: (1) there's been a change so substantial that it has de facto become a new fund. An example would be when FPA Paramount went from a quality-growth domestic smid cap under one team to a mid-cap absolute value global fund under a new team. And (2) if a newly reopened fund has been closed so long that it's dropped off the radar. Matthews Asia Growth & Income is an example of that.
Could we cover larger funds? Sure. Two things constrain us: (1) I do 99% of the fund profiles personally and it's hard to track more than 3000 funds while also having a full-time job and being dad and (2) the value-added isn't necessarily as great because other folks are likely to write about such funds.
Comments
In general, we describe our coverage universe as "all those funds that are off Morningstar's radar." In general, we're willing to initiate coverage of a way cool fund if it is: (1) less than three years old or (2) has less than $150 million AUM. That covers roughly half of all of the funds in existence (about 1300 meet the first criterion, 3100 meet the second, some meet both). Once we've started tracking a fund, we'll stick with it even as it becomes older and larger so long as it continues to do stuff that we think you need to know about.
We will make exception and write about larger funds from time to time. Two categories come to mind: (1) there's been a change so substantial that it has de facto become a new fund. An example would be when FPA Paramount went from a quality-growth domestic smid cap under one team to a mid-cap absolute value global fund under a new team. And (2) if a newly reopened fund has been closed so long that it's dropped off the radar. Matthews Asia Growth & Income is an example of that.
Could we cover larger funds? Sure. Two things constrain us: (1) I do 99% of the fund profiles personally and it's hard to track more than 3000 funds while also having a full-time job and being dad and (2) the value-added isn't necessarily as great because other folks are likely to write about such funds.
Hope that helps,
David