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.
FWIW, the number three holding according to Bloomberg is Sberbank.
The fund began just three years ago, Jan 1, 2014. The inception date reported by Bloomberg appears to be the "strategy" inception date of Jan 1, 1990 (also reported on the fact sheets).
I've been reading through the prospectus, and while the 50,000 foot level description by Bloomberg is okay, the details seem significantly different from what's in the article. For example, the performance fee (or refund) is assessed daily, not semimonthly as Bloomberg writes. The amount is 50% of the excess (shortfall), not 33%. And so on.
I suspect that the fund would have problems registering in the US because the performance fee structure is not perfectly symmetric. Given that the fund's base fee is zero, I think it would be required to return fees in case of underperformance. The fund does not return performance fees if the reserve set aside is depleted, i.e. the management company does not make up this shortfall. Unlike Bridgeway, which actually paid into one of its funds for underpeformance at one point.
Comments
The fund began just three years ago, Jan 1, 2014. The inception date reported by Bloomberg appears to be the "strategy" inception date of Jan 1, 1990 (also reported on the fact sheets).
https://www.orbisaccess.co.uk/our-funds/global-equity-fund/
I've been reading through the prospectus, and while the 50,000 foot level description by Bloomberg is okay, the details seem significantly different from what's in the article. For example, the performance fee (or refund) is assessed daily, not semimonthly as Bloomberg writes. The amount is 50% of the excess (shortfall), not 33%. And so on.
I suspect that the fund would have problems registering in the US because the performance fee structure is not perfectly symmetric. Given that the fund's base fee is zero, I think it would be required to return fees in case of underperformance. The fund does not return performance fees if the reserve set aside is depleted, i.e. the management company does not make up this shortfall. Unlike Bridgeway, which actually paid into one of its funds for underpeformance at one point.