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.
Morningstar's funny. "Smaller" = "our smallest medalists." The sizes here range from $1 - 8 billion and Kinnel himself admits "the last two [Causeway at $5B and Manning & Napier at $8B] are a little too big to count" as "below the radar" but includes them anyways. Why? Because Morningstar doesn't know of five good international funds "below the radar."
I agree with Ted's judgment and might have a chance to listen to Ms. Ketterer in the week ahead. I'll let you know what I hear.
Except for a short period of time after inception where, as I recall, I thought this fund's performance was close to exemplary, CIVVX has not beaten its benchmark's performance for just about any time interval measurable ever since. So does it really matter if an active fund is the best of a (small) bunch if it is not ever better than its bench? I dunno; perhaps my rhetorical question is "hittin' below the radar."
None of them light a fire for me. We have been very happy with Ivy International Core ICEIX, Federated Intl Strategic Value IVFIX, Pear Tree Polaris Foreign Value QFVIX, and a few others that are still relatively 'small'. Causeway is perhaps the best of the group from the article, but for now we will stick to the ones listed and a handful of other, larger options.
Comments
I agree with Ted's judgment and might have a chance to listen to Ms. Ketterer in the week ahead. I'll let you know what I hear.
David