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.
Great fund imho. Especially if you want to be a bit more risk conscious in a volatile sector like Emerging Markets, as I do. fwiw, the only diversified EM fund I need in my portfolio.
Curious, has the fund or manager performed in a manner that you need to double check yourself?
Crash...the answer may lie in whether you feel emerging markets is a space you want a part of your portfolio to occupy. If yes, then it's a good position. Not sure if there's a better option than this fund in that specific area, IMHO.
I peaked in. Not adding at this time, but will do opportunistically. I want to see dollar reversing a bit. If interest rates are going to rise and dollar is going to rise, I don't see how Emerging funds outperform.
Considering its closed, highly regarded and has done really well amongst EM funds, I certainly wouldn't eliminate it. I add to both SFGIX and GPEOX monthly and I would consider stopping if I was worried about EM longer term but its not very likely I'd even reduce what I consider to be two of the best EM funds available.
Considering its closed, highly regarded and has done really well amongst EM funds, I certainly wouldn't eliminate it. I add to both SFGIX and GPEOX monthly and I would consider stopping if I was worried about EM longer term but its not very likely I'd even reduce what I consider to be two of the best EM funds available.
Try Ainsley Brae Sherry/Satuernes, if you want to save money and invest in SFGIX instead. Not quite 12 year old, but still a single malt and freaking good and dirt cheap.
Try Ainsley Brae Sherry/Satuernes, if you want to save money and invest in SFGIX instead. Not quite 12 year old, but still a single malt and freaking good and dirt cheap.
1. Subtract initial value from current value = a difference of $2368 (represents gain). 2. Divide the gain ($2368) by the initial investment ($10,000) = 0.2368. 3. Shifting decimal 2 points to the right gives you the 23.68% increase in value since inception. 4. Dividing above by 5 (approximate years of existence) gives a very rough (slightly understated) return of about 4.74% per year.
You can further refine this by dividing that 23.68% increase in value by 58.5 (the approximate number of months the fund has existed) resulting in a monthly gain of aporoximately .405% and than multiplying that by 12 (number of months in a year) to arrive at an annual average gain over that period of: +4.86%. Geez - Considering the amount of risk assumed in investing in emerging markets, I'm not impressed.
Regarding Balvenie 12-year (from your later post), a check of the store shelf finds that selling for about $50 locally. The best I can afford, occassionally, is Tomatin 12 year, selling locally for $33. Doing the math I find your single malt priced about 51.5% higher than mine. I'm sure you find it better tasting.
I learned my best math from Miss Milton in Eigth Grade back in the late 50s. (She was actually the school librarian.) My high school math teacher, by contrast, was a dork. And, can't remember taking any math classes in college. I'll say, if you needed to do any math back in my younger days before the electronic calculator was mass marketed to the public it was quite an experience - and one you younger folks probably can't remember.
** There are several different ways growth can be expressed in percentages. For example, the figure I got is not the compounded rate of growth which I believe would be lower. But I still think my method useful for providing a rough comparison of performance with other funds during the same period. As for SFGIX: This fund is outside my normal risk perameters in retirement. While I might speculate in small amounts on this type of fund for short periods, it wouldn't do much for peace of mind or ability to sleep at night.
@Hank, you may need a little coffee this early in the morning. 2/15/12 to today (1/3/17) is a tad under five years, not four. What was that about calculators?
Glad to see you mention that "true" (compounded) interest rate is a bit lower than the (arithmetic) average rate you computed.
For example, if a fund doubles in value, then doubles again, it's going from $10K to $40K in two years; a gain of $30K. That "averages" $15K/year, or 150% of the initial investment each year. But the compound rate is "just" 100% (we assumed an annual doubling).
Like yours, my eighth grade math teacher was also one of my best. I used to stay after school doing math puzzles with my teacher. No, not a crush, I really did like this stuff. Now my 10th grade teacher, that was one to have a crush on. But I'm still miffed at getting my lowest math grade, ever, from that teacher.
The second year return would be 60%... $15k on the new base of $25k... So the "average" annual return would be 105% ((150%+60%)/2). Either way, "average" annual returns are worthless, IMO.
What I was demonstrating was how Hank's quick and dirty averaged total return (as contrasted with your averaged annual) figure compared with the true (geometric mean) annual return.
BTW, the new base was $20K, as the hypothetical started from $10K and doubled each year. To get $25K, you're mixing and matching. You're computing intermediate values based on a multi-year annual rate (150%), and then turning around and using those intermediate values to compute piece-part individual annual rates.
To be fair, that will tend to give a closer approximation of each year's rate. But at the expense of many calculations (each year's approximate value), still leading to an overestimation of annualized rate in most cases. If you're going to all that effort, you might as well look up the real annual rates.
Since I picked a constant rate of growth (each year's rate of growth is 100%), the arithmetic average of those rates equals the geometric average. It's only when rates fluctuate that the former exceeds the latter.
Thanks msf & others for fact-checking me. Yes, coffee and more attention to detail needed on my part. I re-did the math and hopefully the numbers line up properly now.
Also, the nice thing about percentages is that a large gain (i.e. good year) earlier on is better than if the same return were gained in a later year. Has to do with compounding. I'm sure you and JoJo have already addressed that.
PS I hope @Crash Is learning something from all this instruction.
Got to agree with @hank. Those of us in SFGIX (and GPEOX) are not getting paid much for the risk taken. We could do just as well with a bond fund. EMs had a bit of excitement last year, but how many times in the past were we told "this is the year for EMs"?
@hank: Yes, I am absolutely paying attention... @BenWP: I see it...... But David and others here are in love with SFGIX. M* rates it highly, within its peer group. Great performance in a stinky category? Like YAZ winning the batting title at .301, in a year when pitchers, not hitters, dominated. Wasn't that Denny McLain's 30-win year? What's a mother to do?
This may not be hank's day for math. A 20% gain followed by a 10% gain is no different from a 10% gain followed by a 20% gain. Either way, one winds up with 132% of the original investment. That's because multiplication is commutative.
120% x 110% = 110% x 120%.
A reason why conventional wisdom says a large gain early is better is because in retirement you're bleeding off fixed dollar amounts each year. If the large gain comes early, then in the first year you're bleeding off a smaller percentage of the investment, leaving a bigger fraction to grow.
Say you've started with $100K, and are drawing down $10K annually. If the 20% year comes first, then starting at year zero you have: 0: $100K 1: $120K - $10K = $110K 2: $110K x 110% - $10K = $121K - $10K = $111K
If the 20% year comes later, then starting at year zero you have: 0: $100K 1: $110K - $10K = $100K 2: $100K x 120% - $10K = $120K - $10K = $110K
Yeah - I ran my own simulation and arrived at the same answer. Pretty much destroys everything I thought I knew about math. Still doesn't make sense to me - but never learnt much math after 8th grade. Thanks msf for the math lesson.
Base amount $100
Example 1: Year 1 experiences gain of 30% = $130 Year 2 experiences gain of 10% = $143 Year 3 experiences gain of 5% = $150.15
Example 2 Year 1 experiences gain of 5% = $105.00 Year 2 experiences gain of 10% = $115.50 Year 3 experiences gain of 30% = $150.15
* Edit: In my (humbled) defense - and where I probably mis-learned something long ago - a lump sum dollar amount received early on (in say a pay scale) is more beneficial than the same amount received/contributed later on. Came up in contract negations once "many moons" ago.
SFGIX (or SIGIX) is a very good option for investors who want EM with much lower-than-average volatility. It is one of a handful of EM funds with a positive 3-Yr Sortino Ratio. It will have a 5-Yr anniversary on 2/15/17 and will start showing up on a lot of radar screens. Fortunately, Andrew Foster will not hesitate to close the fund if asset flow is too much. It has the highest Alpha of the 40+ EM funds and ETFs we track. Because M* puts Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, and Hong Kong in the developed intl category, the fund appears to be less EM than some others. I really like this fund and its manager.
Yes, it closed a few months ago --- but I think BobC is referring to a hard close where even existing shareholders can't add more $$ to their positions.
I find that highly unlikely for the foreseeable future... Fund could at least double before Mr. Foster would hard close and to get there would take a great deal of inflows, not likely to come from additions - would need substantial subscriptions.
Considering its closed, highly regarded and has done really well amongst EM funds, I certainly wouldn't eliminate it. I add to both SFGIX and GPEOX monthly and I would consider stopping if I was worried about EM longer term but its not very likely I'd even reduce what I consider to be two of the best EM funds available.
Comments
Curious, has the fund or manager performed in a manner that you need to double check yourself?
Kevin
http://sr1.wine-searcher.net/images/labels/04/46/the-balvenie-doublewood-12-year-old-single-malt-scotch-whisky-speyside-scotland-10560446.jpg
Here's how I learned to do percentages:
1. Subtract initial value from current value = a difference of $2368 (represents gain).
2. Divide the gain ($2368) by the initial investment ($10,000) = 0.2368.
3. Shifting decimal 2 points to the right gives you the 23.68% increase in value since inception.
4. Dividing above by 5 (approximate years of existence) gives a very rough (slightly understated) return of about 4.74% per year.
You can further refine this by dividing that 23.68% increase in value by 58.5 (the approximate number of months the fund has existed) resulting in a monthly gain of aporoximately .405% and than multiplying that by 12 (number of months in a year) to arrive at an annual average gain over that period of: +4.86%. Geez - Considering the amount of risk assumed in investing in emerging markets, I'm not impressed.
Regarding Balvenie 12-year (from your later post), a check of the store shelf finds that selling for about $50 locally. The best I can afford, occassionally, is Tomatin 12 year, selling locally for $33. Doing the math I find your single malt priced about 51.5% higher than mine. I'm sure you find it better tasting.
I learned my best math from Miss Milton in Eigth Grade back in the late 50s. (She was actually the school librarian.) My high school math teacher, by contrast, was a dork. And, can't remember taking any math classes in college. I'll say, if you needed to do any math back in my younger days before the electronic calculator was mass marketed to the public it was quite an experience - and one you younger folks probably can't remember.
** There are several different ways growth can be expressed in percentages. For example, the figure I got is not the compounded rate of growth which I believe would be lower. But I still think my method useful for providing a rough comparison of performance with other funds during the same period. As for SFGIX: This fund is outside my normal risk perameters in retirement. While I might speculate in small amounts on this type of fund for short periods, it wouldn't do much for peace of mind or ability to sleep at night.
Balvenie is my go-to scotch. I prefer the Carribean Cask myself, but they're all excellent.
Glad to see you mention that "true" (compounded) interest rate is a bit lower than the (arithmetic) average rate you computed.
For example, if a fund doubles in value, then doubles again, it's going from $10K to $40K in two years; a gain of $30K. That "averages" $15K/year, or 150% of the initial investment each year. But the compound rate is "just" 100% (we assumed an annual doubling).
Like yours, my eighth grade math teacher was also one of my best. I used to stay after school doing math puzzles with my teacher. No, not a crush, I really did like this stuff. Now my 10th grade teacher, that was one to have a crush on. But I'm still miffed at getting my lowest math grade, ever, from that teacher.
BTW, the new base was $20K, as the hypothetical started from $10K and doubled each year. To get $25K, you're mixing and matching. You're computing intermediate values based on a multi-year annual rate (150%), and then turning around and using those intermediate values to compute piece-part individual annual rates.
To be fair, that will tend to give a closer approximation of each year's rate. But at the expense of many calculations (each year's approximate value), still leading to an overestimation of annualized rate in most cases. If you're going to all that effort, you might as well look up the real annual rates.
Since I picked a constant rate of growth (each year's rate of growth is 100%), the arithmetic average of those rates equals the geometric average. It's only when rates fluctuate that the former exceeds the latter.
Also, the nice thing about percentages is that a large gain (i.e. good year) earlier on is better than if the same return were gained in a later year. Has to do with compounding. I'm sure you and JoJo have already addressed that.
PS I hope @Crash Is learning something from all this instruction.
120% x 110% = 110% x 120%.
A reason why conventional wisdom says a large gain early is better is because in retirement you're bleeding off fixed dollar amounts each year. If the large gain comes early, then in the first year you're bleeding off a smaller percentage of the investment, leaving a bigger fraction to grow.
Say you've started with $100K, and are drawing down $10K annually. If the 20% year comes first, then starting at year zero you have:
0: $100K
1: $120K - $10K = $110K
2: $110K x 110% - $10K = $121K - $10K = $111K
If the 20% year comes later, then starting at year zero you have:
0: $100K
1: $110K - $10K = $100K
2: $100K x 120% - $10K = $120K - $10K = $110K
The first sequence leaves you with more money.
Base amount $100
Example 1:
Year 1 experiences gain of 30% = $130
Year 2 experiences gain of 10% = $143
Year 3 experiences gain of 5% = $150.15
Example 2
Year 1 experiences gain of 5% = $105.00
Year 2 experiences gain of 10% = $115.50
Year 3 experiences gain of 30% = $150.15
* Edit: In my (humbled) defense - and where I probably mis-learned something long ago - a lump sum dollar amount received early on (in say a pay scale) is more beneficial than the same amount received/contributed later on. Came up in contract negations once "many moons" ago.
Yes, it closed a few months ago --- but I think BobC is referring to a hard close where even existing shareholders can't add more $$ to their positions.