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.
Interesting comment from a shareholder of FPA at end of article:
"The fund is clearly bloated and the managers have taken no steps to either lower the management fees or stem the inflows of new money. Romick concedes that the funds's size precludes investments in small caps but believes the fund now, because of it's size has a "place at the table" with some of its larger holdings. I don't see this trade off as being shareholder friendly. I have been a long-term shareholder and fully anticipated that the fund would close or lower its fees a long time ago. As it is, the fund is bloated with cash with few opportunities, as Romick states, to deploy that cash. So with cash earning nil, shareholders are paying a heavy price to a manager laden with cash who has few ideas how to deploy that cash in a meaningful way. "
Comments
Interesting comment from a shareholder of FPA at end of article:
"The fund is clearly bloated and the managers have taken no steps to either lower the management fees or stem the inflows of new money. Romick concedes that the funds's size precludes investments in small caps but believes the fund now, because of it's size has a "place at the table" with some of its larger holdings. I don't see this trade off as being shareholder friendly. I have been a long-term shareholder and fully anticipated that the fund would close or lower its fees a long time ago. As it is, the fund is bloated with cash with few opportunities, as Romick states, to deploy that cash. So with cash earning nil, shareholders are paying a heavy price to a manager laden with cash who has few ideas how to deploy that cash in a meaningful way. "