Mutual Global Discovery Fund
I read today that PIMCO hired away their lead managers Anne Gudefin and Charles Lahr. This is huge for PIMCO and really bad for FT/Mutual Series funds. I use this fund a lot. I will wait anxiously to hear what the response from FT is. I also look forward to seeing what they will do over at PIMCO. Interesting since PIMCO already uses RCM/NACM/NFJ as subadvisors for their Allianz portfolios. PIMCO mostly runs index-type equity funds I think (other than the subadvised funds above).
They have already responded…
Mutual Global Discovery Fund Portfolio managers: Peter Langerman, Philippe Brugere-Trelat It is posted on the FT website. We use TEDIX but will probably stop depending on how Philippe has performed. We are still looking into his history and speaking with our rep.Langerman has been around a while in the Mutual Series fold. It will still be interesting to see if they can maintain the same deep value approach. I just hope it doesn’t turn into Mutual Shares. Not that it’s a bad fund, but I like the defensive, global posture of MD. I like it is a core equity holding for conservative investors.
My firm placed a review watch on them today. If they remove them, it's probably not a good sign.Dump it… don’t take the risk… buy SGENX or MDLOX instead…(though there is a risk with SGENX)
Actually, I use both of those funds already. I am not yet concerned about SGENX. I watch closely to see what they do, and I have read interviews with the managers. I am comfortable for right now. TEDIX is a little bit different than these. It is both deep value and defensive. But overall, I think SGENX is better managed than TEDIX.Dump it… don’t take the risk… buy SGENX or MDLOX instead…(though there is a risk with SGENX)
Yeah but if mutual shares guy takes over, then it won't be what it was...
What am I missing here? TEDIX is international equity and MDLOX/SGENX (although great funds) are allocation funds. Like maybe 60/40 or 80/20?
A lot… TEDIX currently is 63% equities(US 15%), 35% cash, 3% bonds(yeah over 100% but it is from their website) expense 1.30
SGENX is 76% equities(US 25%), 11.2% gold, 5.1% bonds, 7.7% cash...expense 1.14[quote=Squash1]A lot… TEDIX currently is 63% equities(US 15%), 35% cash, 3% bonds(yeah over 100% but it is from their website) expense 1.30
SGENX is 76% equities(US 25%), 11.2% gold, 5.1% bonds, 7.7% cash...expense 1.14[/quote] That's because they are short 3% equities. But by your description above, how can SGENX replace TEDIX without disrupting the rest of a portfolio. Maybe MAEGX, OAKWX or NWGAX would be more suitable...OK, OK, OK. The issue is that all three (essentially) are global allocation funds. They flex between international and U.S., and also flex their cash and gold positions.
If you are someone that strictly manages to style boxes (I am not), these are not the funds to use. I typically employ more of a core/satellite approach, with these funds typically being strong large-cap global core holding. They are not exactly interchangeable, but they tend to have the same focus on results....absolute returns through all market cycles. They don't use aggressive hedging techniques (well, a little bit) like a true absolute return strategy, but they will typcially underperform during bulls and outperform during bears.B24-
In larger accounts with multiple funds, how do you prevent overlap? Do you have time to micro-manage these funds to see which way they drift and if it's the same way? Or is this just your way versus mine? I honestly prefer index funds for "core" holdings then chase yield in the "satellite".[quote=DeBolt][quote=Squash1]A lot… TEDIX currently is 63% equities(US 15%), 35% cash, 3% bonds(yeah over 100% but it is from their website) expense 1.30
SGENX is 76% equities(US 25%), 11.2% gold, 5.1% bonds, 7.7% cash...expense 1.14[/quote] That's because they are short 3% equities. But by your description above, how can SGENX replace TEDIX without disrupting the rest of a portfolio. Maybe MAEGX, OAKWX or NWGAX would be more suitable...[/quote] What?? Where is the disruption? other than better performance(note: i rarely use funds anymore, but STOP FOLLOWING MORNINGSTAR BOXES!!! )[quote=DeBolt]B24-
In larger accounts with multiple funds, how do you prevent overlap? Do you have time to micro-manage these funds to see which way they drift and if it's the same way? Or is this just your way versus mine? I honestly prefer index funds for "core" holdings then chase yield in the "satellite".[/quote] Why are you asking how to prevent overlap? In your scenario, the index would overlap the satellites..[quote=Squash1][quote=DeBolt]B24-
In larger accounts with multiple funds, how do you prevent overlap? Do you have time to micro-manage these funds to see which way they drift and if it's the same way? Or is this just your way versus mine? I honestly prefer index funds for "core" holdings then chase yield in the "satellite".[/quote] Why are you asking how to prevent overlap? In your scenario, the index would overlap the satellites..[/quote] My overlap would be intentional. Instead of funds do you use ETF's or individual stocks? We are moving to more ETF based models.ETFs
So we could pick this back up with active vs passive but I don't have it in me to go on. To each his own.
[quote=DeBolt]B24-
In larger accounts with multiple funds, how do you prevent overlap? Do you have time to micro-manage these funds to see which way they drift and if it's the same way? Or is this just your way versus mine? I honestly prefer index funds for "core" holdings then chase yield in the "satellite".[/quote] With these funds it is not a problem. Could it become a problem? I guess so. But it's not like a I am layering in other large cap global value funds. To these I am adding small caps, emerging markets, fixed income of various sorts, etc. It's really not a problem. And if I use these funds regularly, I don't see monitoring them as "micro-managing". How often do you have to check for overlap? Once a month? Maybe? That takes 5 minutes.So I just got the call from my FT wholesaler on the manager change. He let me know that we shouldn’t worry, they won’t miss a beat. Wheeeeeeewwwhhh! Thank goodness I got that update. I was thinking he was going to give me some real bad news.
did he explain why Founding Funds didn't work?So I just got the call from my FT wholesaler on the manager change. He let me know that we shouldn’t worry, they won’t miss a beat. Wheeeeeeewwwhhh! Thank goodness I got that update. I was thinking he was going to give me some real bad news.
did he explain why Founding Funds didn't work?[/quote] I don't know. I don't use that fund(s).[quote=B24]So I just got the call from my FT wholesaler on the manager change. He let me know that we shouldn’t worry, they won’t miss a beat. Wheeeeeeewwwhhh! Thank goodness I got that update. I was thinking he was going to give me some real bad news.
Mutual funds are for suckers!
except for "A" Shares....they rock!!!Mutual funds are for suckers!
[quote=iceco1d][quote=Squash1][quote=DeBolt][quote=Squash1]A lot… TEDIX currently is 63% equities(US 15%), 35% cash, 3% bonds(yeah over 100% but it is from their website) expense 1.30
SGENX is 76% equities(US 25%), 11.2% gold, 5.1% bonds, 7.7% cash...expense 1.14[/quote] That's because they are short 3% equities. But by your description above, how can SGENX replace TEDIX without disrupting the rest of a portfolio. Maybe MAEGX, OAKWX or NWGAX would be more suitable...[/quote] What?? Where is the disruption? other than better performance(note: i rarely use funds anymore, but STOP FOLLOWING MORNINGSTAR BOXES!!! )[/quote] Please elaborate on this. Are you talking about ignoring "Growth" vs "Value" or are you talking about ignoring capitalization? And for FI, are you talking about ignoring duration, maturity, and credit quality, or were you simply reference equities?[/quote] All the boxes, what is the point of being in small cap fund(that is tied up by prospectus) and has to buy sh&t even in a bad market because of cash allowances per prospectus.. Ever notice that some of the best funds are ones that have the least restrictions? That comment that goes around from mutual funds "that 93% of returns is allocation" if you read the paper that is not what he meant... Kind of like "good fences make great neighbors" isn't what Frost meant.. read the paper by Brinson more carefully than the mutual fund industry did..The VOLATILITY of the returns can be explained by asset allocation not the actual returns.
i PMd you because i think we somewhat agree.
Why would I want to hire a large cap growth money manager that bleeds down to mid-cap growth for yield? If I wanted mid I would have hired a mid manager.
Sometimes it is hard to find a good manager and you have to make do but still 99% of our mutual fund models are based off of a manager's ability to run a fund that selects the best large cap growth(or whatever category we are looking at) stocks and maybe shorts the worst. That's it. If I were running a small model say a couple funds then I would use a manager that searches around some to get that extra yield. How can you decide which fund to use if it is not tied to a "box". The only way is to use his history which the past two years should make that damn near impopssible. Good funds blew up and sh*tty funds came out strong. Now it is all "gut" feelings. Thanks but no thanks. I will stick to our boring "boxed" funds for our cores.SGENX just got new managers as well[/quote][quote=Squash1]Dump it… don’t take the risk… buy SGENX or MDLOX instead…(though there is a risk with SGENX)
Yes, but I don’t think they are going to shift strategy much. And Eviallard is staying on as a “special consultant” or some stupid title like that. He’s basically babysitting to make sure nothing goes haywire. But First Eagle has had a sound investment process in place for decades. Equity/Gold/Cash/Bonds they know what they are doing. They are very defensive, always looking for that “margin of safety” as Graham/Buffett always preached. They don’t speculate on the price of gold, but it always represents 10-20% of the portfolio (through a combo of bullion and mining stocks) as a defensive measure - one of the reasons they outperform/underperform in bears/bulls. And they make intelligent use of cash when necessary.
Using something like this fund is not about style boxes - it’s about getting large cap equity-like returns with less risk and more consistency than a large cap index fund (even though they have trounced large cap domestic and international over nearly every trailing time period). However, they underperform (sometimes wildly) during periods like the late 90’s when fundamentals and capitalization are out of synch.
SGENX just got new managers as well[/quote] One new manager, but Abhay is still there..[quote=Squash1]Dump it… don’t take the risk… buy SGENX or MDLOX instead…(though there is a risk with SGENX)
SGENX just got new managers as well[/quote] One new manager, but Abhay is still there..[/quote] Yeah, but even he is new relative to JME's tenure. They'll be fine.[quote=AGEMAN][quote=Squash1]Dump it… don’t take the risk… buy SGENX or MDLOX instead…(though there is a risk with SGENX)
He has been there since 2000… JME was there before god was…