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.
The event is billed as a high level discussion of EM equities, not specific to the fund RIMIX/CNRYX itself (which is done separately at a later date), but to the asset class in general based on the PM's research. Participants can submit questions before or during the call.
Am I missing something here. RIMIX appears to be an Asia concentrated fund, not a diversified EM fund. 95% in Asia? Then why not go with MAPIX, 96% Asia. Looks like comparable market cap. One is heavy China (RIMIX) the other Japan (MAPIX). Similar returns.
Good returns, but I guess I wouldn't hold it as my EM fund. And who need 2 EM funds
Mike, look at the differences between MAPIX and CNR in developed vs. emerging. CNR is an emerging Asia fund.
Never have come close to buying it myself, but past contributor Scott, who is/was pretty skookum about investing, intro'd the fund to the board. And who knows, there might be something worth learning from the manager's webcast.
RIMIX is a concentrated mid cap Asian EM fund whose objective is capital appreciation. It has a market cap of 3.2B invested in only six countries. Accordingly, its benchmark is the MSCI EM Asian Index.
On the other hand, MAPIX is a large cap growth and income fund seeking total return. It has a market cap of 32B invested in 12 Asian countries. Its benchmark is the MSCi AC (All Country) Asia Pacific Index. While it is an Asian EM product like RIMIX, it is not a broadly diversified EM fund either, only a more diversified Asian one. RIMIX has no geographical allocations outside of Asia, MAPIX only piecemeal ones.
The 30% allocation to Japan in MAPIX suits its objective of investing in both developed and emerging economies in an effort to capture that country's returns. RIMIX does not invest in Japan because it is a developed economy, not emerging, and lacks the macro characteristics the manager is seeking. MAPIX also invests in Taiwan and S. Korea, both of which MSCI identifies as emerging, but some argue -- including some at Matthews -- that if one examines their economies that they too are developed. (FTSE upgraded S. Korea to developed several years ago.) RIMIX does not invest in either country because the manager also sees them as developed but more specifically as lacking investable attributes, thereby showing a distinct investment bias right or wrong.
As for someone not needing more than one EM fund, I suppose that appears to make sense prima facie; however, I'm skeptical and feel that investors can profit from the differences in EM funds because of how they vary in objective, market cap, geographical allocation, and so on. Each of us has to decide.
You can see what performance differences exist by entering RIMIX in the quote box at M* and then MAPIX in the chart box that will show how the funds compare since the inception of RIMIX. Comparing the two funds Total Trailing Return under the Performance Tab gives a slightly different look. But perhaps you already know this and have reached your own conclusion. I'm not arguing for one vs. the other, in being wrong or right, but only in citing the data.
I am interested in the webinar because the manager's other calls have been informative. Perhaps others will find it useful too in evaluating how they invest in EM.
Where our EM returns come from is an individual preference, but it's worth pointing out the specific differences in how those returns are produced and then choose accordingly.
@openice, for those who have an individual preference to over-weight Asia in their EM allotment, this looks like a good way to do it. My point was RIMIX probably shouldn't be used as anyone's designated EM holding.
And as far as MAPIX and RIMIX having different caps, M* shows they are not much different at all. Giant + large, RIMIX=77%, MAPIX=80%. Mid+small, RIMIX=23%, MAPIX=20. Not a huge difference. M* gives each a 'large' designation
To the extent that the Fund seeks to invest in the securities of Indian companies, it currently intends to do so by investing in shares of the Mauritius Subsidiary, a wholly-owned, investment holding company registered with and regulated by the Mauritius Financial Services Commission that is also managed by the Adviser. The Mauritius Subsidiary was formed to allow the Fund’s investments in Indian companies to benefit from a favorable tax treaty between Mauritius and India. In order to do so, the Mauritius Subsidiary will seek to maintain residency in Mauritius. Please see “Risks of Investment through Mauritius” under “More About the Fund’s Risks – Principal Risks of the Funds” below for additional information.
Comments
Good returns, but I guess I wouldn't hold it as my EM fund. And who need 2 EM funds
Never have come close to buying it myself, but past contributor Scott, who is/was pretty skookum about investing, intro'd the fund to the board. And who knows, there might be something worth learning from the manager's webcast.
RIMIX is a concentrated mid cap Asian EM fund whose objective is capital appreciation. It has a market cap of 3.2B invested in only six countries. Accordingly, its benchmark is the MSCI EM Asian Index.
On the other hand, MAPIX is a large cap growth and income fund seeking total return. It has a market cap of 32B invested in 12 Asian countries. Its benchmark is the MSCi AC (All Country) Asia Pacific Index. While it is an Asian EM product like RIMIX, it is not a broadly diversified EM fund either, only a more diversified Asian one. RIMIX has no geographical allocations outside of Asia, MAPIX only piecemeal ones.
The 30% allocation to Japan in MAPIX suits its objective of investing in both developed and emerging economies in an effort to capture that country's returns. RIMIX does not invest in Japan because it is a developed economy, not emerging, and lacks the macro characteristics the manager is seeking. MAPIX also invests in Taiwan and S. Korea, both of which MSCI identifies as emerging, but some argue -- including some at Matthews -- that if one examines their economies that they too are developed. (FTSE upgraded S. Korea to developed several years ago.) RIMIX does not invest in either country because the manager also sees them as developed but more specifically as lacking investable attributes, thereby showing a distinct investment bias right or wrong.
As for someone not needing more than one EM fund, I suppose that appears to make sense prima facie; however, I'm skeptical and feel that investors can profit from the differences in EM funds because of how they vary in objective, market cap, geographical allocation, and so on. Each of us has to decide.
You can see what performance differences exist by entering RIMIX in the quote box at M* and then MAPIX in the chart box that will show how the funds compare since the inception of RIMIX. Comparing the two funds Total Trailing Return under the Performance Tab gives a slightly different look. But perhaps you already know this and have reached your own conclusion. I'm not arguing for one vs. the other, in being wrong or right, but only in citing the data.
I am interested in the webinar because the manager's other calls have been informative. Perhaps others will find it useful too in evaluating how they invest in EM.
Where our EM returns come from is an individual preference, but it's worth pointing out the specific differences in how those returns are produced and then choose accordingly.
And as far as MAPIX and RIMIX having different caps, M* shows they are not much different at all. Giant + large, RIMIX=77%, MAPIX=80%. Mid+small, RIMIX=23%, MAPIX=20. Not a huge difference. M* gives each a 'large' designation
(page9) http://www.citynationalrochdalefunds.com/Content/pdfs/prospectus/CNR_Statutory_Prospectus_Class_Y_2016.pdf