Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

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.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Expense Ratio: SFGIX

Again, (and as usual) the monthly April Commentary was a great read. Thank you. Along the way, attention was paid to Seafarer. Did I miss it, or was the ER given as Morningstar has it, rather than the CORRECT ER, at 1.25%...?
Morningstar has the SFGIX ER at 1.4%. I'll be on the road, or else I'd join the Call with Andrew Foster, coming up.:)

Comments

  • There are theoretical numbers and actual numbers. M* publishes both on a fund's expenses page, but uses the actual on a fund's summary page.

    By "actual" I mean actual dollars and percentages spent by the fund, as reported in its latest (semi)annual report. By "theoretical" I mean the prospective expenses as speculated by its prospectus.

    It is worth noting that all the figures incorporate fee waivers. So both the "actual" ER of 1.4% and the "theoretical" ER of 1.25% are subsidized numbers. The "true" "theoretical" ER (per prospectus) is 1.66%.

    The lower number (1.25% vs. the older 1.4%) going forward is a result of a reduced cap put into place by Seafarer last Sept 1. It does not necessarily represent a reduction in "true" expenses. On the other hand, Seafarer did reduce its declared management fees by 10 basis points at that same time - that represents a true reduction in ER.
  • Thank you very much.
Sign In or Register to comment.