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.
Both GPIOX and GPGOX will now be permitted to invest from 10 to 60% of assets in emerging or frontier markets. The funds could use some goosing at this point in my opinion. Will this do the trick?
Depending on what their prospectus stated before, this is a huge change. I don't own any GP funds but if I did, I would be cautious going forward. The reasoning behind such a change needs to be checked out.
GPIOX was permitted and is permitted to invest 10-60%. GPGOX was permitted and is permitted to do 5-50%.
I've written president Eric Huefner to comment but, based on a side-by-side reading of the September 2014 language and the new March 2015 text, the change appears to be limited to two words: "are those" becomes "includes all" in reference to which countries are E or F.
Eric describes the change as having "no significance," doesn't particularly recall a discussion of it and attributes it to a lawyer looking to align the phrasing used in two different sections of the prospectus.
I'm glad there's no real change, especially since GPEOX seems the better vehicle to really go after frontier markets. I wrote to Eric a couple years ago and asked if they might consider eventually launching a frontier markets fund and the answer was a kind 'no'. The irony in all this is to wonder how much it's costing those of who own shares for some lawyer to earn his keep this way. I'm not a big supporter of ambulance chasing, but in this case I think it would be a much better use of his/her time.
Well, sometimes it's good to have someone checking for consistency in documentation. Recently here in CA it was found that oil companies have been polluting a number of water aquifers with waste injection because the Feds and the State had two differing lists of permissible injection sites. The State was administering the agreement, but it's list for some reason had a fair number of sites listed as permissible which were not on the Federal listing. It's highly possible that we may come to wish that hadn't happened.
@Old_Joe, agreed!! It would have been a far far better use of that lawyer's time if he had spent it comparing Federal and CA lists for where one could inject waste.
Comments
GPIOX was permitted and is permitted to invest 10-60%. GPGOX was permitted and is permitted to do 5-50%.
I've written president Eric Huefner to comment but, based on a side-by-side reading of the September 2014 language and the new March 2015 text, the change appears to be limited to two words: "are those" becomes "includes all" in reference to which countries are E or F.
Seems odd. I'll share what I hear back.
David
David