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.
I never followed this fund in particular but there was a large uproar when the change was made. Gift trust was a very unique investment. The change that opened the fund to all investors irked the GT investors to no end. Incidentally, since the fund changed to All Cap Growth, it's been a below average performer.
John, thank you. I'm one of those grandparents who made the mistake of gifting this fund to 4 grandchildren in 1980's 90's. What hard to understand is how American Century got away with it.
In theory the idea sounds good but if I wanted to go that route I would want a choice as to where the money was going. A simple approach would be a index fund for example.
AC had some hot funds in those days. I was in Ultra. Those funds attracted a ton of money afterwards as the investing magazines hyped them up. Growing pains put a lot of strain on the company as they were behind on hiring help from what I understand.
As for the Giftrust fiasco, I'm not a lawyer but opening up that fund to new investors who could move in and out while locking in those who invested in the original idea should have voided the contract between the investor and AC. Giftrust was a very focused fund in the small cap arena. It might have been prudent for them to close it but they didn't.
I have invested with AC now for 29 years. I've never had any issue with them but the Giftrust situation tells us all that buyer beware is always a good thing even with a brand you are loyal to.
Actually , as I recall from the period (1990s), AC encountered numerous legal challenges to their stipulation that the money couldn't be touched for a set number of years. In other words, certain investors tried to take the $$ out early (for a myriad of different reasons) and than went to court and fought AC after they declined. I believe some of the plaintiffs were successful. Whether from exhaustion over fighting these challenges, or perhaps based on their own legal research, they threw in the towel.
A great idea in concept. Leave the money alone and let the managers run the fund for the long term. Go fishing or whatever - and stop reading or viewing the financial press for 10-20 years. (The "Rip Vanwinkle" approach to investing). For whatever reason, the public's attitudes changed. It's possible, too, that AC screwed up in their execution of the fund's investment mandate. But my guess is the downfall was more related to changing investor behaviors and the legal challenges mentioned. -
Here owners and former owners vent their frustrations with the fund - particularly their difficulties withdrawing money. While I can't vouch for the accuracy of any of these complaints, they do provide a sense of some of the issues that arose: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/finance/american_century.html
Comments
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203687504576655152479572910
AC had some hot funds in those days. I was in Ultra. Those funds attracted a ton of money afterwards as the investing magazines hyped them up. Growing pains put a lot of strain on the company as they were behind on hiring help from what I understand.
As for the Giftrust fiasco, I'm not a lawyer but opening up that fund to new investors who could move in and out while locking in those who invested in the original idea should have voided the contract between the investor and AC. Giftrust was a very focused fund in the small cap arena. It might have been prudent for them to close it but they didn't.
I have invested with AC now for 29 years. I've never had any issue with them but the Giftrust situation tells us all that buyer beware is always a good thing even with a brand you are loyal to.
A great idea in concept. Leave the money alone and let the managers run the fund for the long term. Go fishing or whatever - and stop reading or viewing the financial press for 10-20 years. (The "Rip Vanwinkle" approach to investing). For whatever reason, the public's attitudes changed. It's possible, too, that AC screwed up in their execution of the fund's investment mandate. But my guess is the downfall was more related to changing investor behaviors and the legal challenges mentioned.
-
Here AC discusses a (new) 2005 Missouri law (their home state) that affected/altered the status of gift-trust accounts: https://www.americancentury.com/content/americancentury/direct/en/investment-products/mutual-funds/giftrust/trust-law-information.html
Here owners and former owners vent their frustrations with the fund - particularly their difficulties withdrawing money. While I can't vouch for the accuracy of any of these complaints, they do provide a sense of some of the issues that arose: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/finance/american_century.html