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
Looks like Affiliated Managers Group (AMG) have completed Yacktman Funds acquisition
My fear on this transition is not as much that fees may inch up, but that the new owners push the fund's asset base even higher then it is today, over ~6 billion. I can see it growing like the Dodge&Cox stock fund did in the 90's-00's or the Contra fund before that. The Yacktman fund's flexibility to move in and out of cash for safety is a big plus for me.
Reply to @MikeM: I share the same concern. Michael Price sold Mutual Series Funds to Franklin while he was on the top. Asset continues to escalate many folds and the funds are lost most of their flexibility they once had.
Question, will there be separate classes such as institutional and loaded shares?
Reply to @Sven: I do not have latest docs but from the earlier SEC filings there are 3 share classes:
Investor Service Institutional
There are no loads but different levels of 12b-1 and "other" expenses that makes the total expense ratio different for each class even though the base management fee is the same for all share classes. Also initial investment dollar minimums are different.
On Friday you could still buy into Service shares at Fidelity with a small minimum ($500)
Reply to @Sven: I'm not sure that Mutual Series is a great example of a good family gone bad. When Michael Price stepped down as a day to day manager of the Franklin Mutual Series funds March 1998, David Winters was named to replace him in the team that managed the funds. Winters had worked along side Price, and was considered a protege. Winters left in 2005 to run his own independent fund.
So it seems fair to look at how he as done compared with the Mutual Series funds. Looking at the past five years (the longest "standardized" period during which the Wintergreen fund existed), it would appear that Wintergreen has performed somewhat better in raw numbers, but at a cost. I compare WGRNX with MDISX (the original Mutual Discovery fund share class) and with MQIFX (the original Mutual Qualified, now Quest share class), because these are the two Mutual Series funds that have evolved into world funds, as is Wintergreen. (Beacon has evolved from a small cap fund to a large cap, but still domestic.)
The five year returns are: WGRNX: 1.25% (per year, annualized) MDISX: -0.36% MQIFX: -0.41%
At the same time, the Mutual Series have remained fairly true to the traditional value orientation, mixing value and distressed securities. Wintergreen has drifted well off into the growth arena. Wintergreen's five year risk rating (per M*), while still below average, is higher than Beacon's or Quest's low risk rating. This is clearly reflected in its 2008 performance (where it lost about 13% more than the Mutual Series funds lost), and in its 2009 performance (where it gained about 11% more than the Mutual Series funds gained).
Given the relative differences in risk profiles, I would consider the Mutual Series funds' performance on a par with Wintergreen's. And they have remained true in style and portfolio to Heinze'/Price's style. (Rather remarkable, given the management turnover at Franklin.) It turns out that these funds were keepers.
If it follows what Royce funds did - Investor class now available on NTF platform at low minimum, includes 12-b-1 fee (0.25%); the old no-load share now is the Service class shares that require transaction fee. Presumably, Institutional Shares require high minimum ($1M or more) without 12-b-1.
Reply to @Sven: While the ticker stayed the same CUSIP has probably changed and Fidelity has not installed the page under new CUSIP. Even if the page was there, the minimum purchase is often overstated than really allowed.
If you try to put an order of $1, you can get an idea on the minimum. $500 was for retirement account. Taxable could be different.
Reply to @msf: I apologize for being harsh on Mutual Series funds. Fact is that the total asset under management of the funds have grown considerably since the sale to Franklin. As you mentioned that investment process and style remained true to the founders, the market capitalization and investment mandates drifted accordingly. Mutual Discovery started as a small cap fund and closed several times to new investors as the asset grew. It then morphed into a global all-cap fund. Another subtle change is the declining allocation to distressed securities from low double digits to less than 5% today. At the same time, are these opportunities too small to be meaningful (from investment perspective) when the asset is so much bigger today?
Even with all the changes I still invest with Mutual Series funds while maintaining assess to other Templeton funds, notably Global Bond and Global Total Return Bond. Through the two downturns in the past decade, Mutual Series funds held up quite well. As for Wintergreen fund, there is an institutional share available today with a lower expense ratio.
Comments
YACKTMAN FOCUSED FUND SERVICE CLASS
My fear on this transition is not as much that fees may inch up, but that the new owners push the fund's asset base even higher then it is today, over ~6 billion. I can see it growing like the Dodge&Cox stock fund did in the 90's-00's or the Contra fund before that. The Yacktman fund's flexibility to move in and out of cash for safety is a big plus for me.
Question, will there be separate classes such as institutional and loaded shares?
Investor
Service
Institutional
There are no loads but different levels of 12b-1 and "other" expenses that makes the total expense ratio different for each class even though the base management fee is the same for all share classes. Also initial investment dollar minimums are different.
On Friday you could still buy into Service shares at Fidelity with a small minimum ($500)
So it seems fair to look at how he as done compared with the Mutual Series funds. Looking at the past five years (the longest "standardized" period during which the Wintergreen fund existed), it would appear that Wintergreen has performed somewhat better in raw numbers, but at a cost. I compare WGRNX with MDISX (the original Mutual Discovery fund share class) and with MQIFX (the original Mutual Qualified, now Quest share class), because these are the two Mutual Series funds that have evolved into world funds, as is Wintergreen. (Beacon has evolved from a small cap fund to a large cap, but still domestic.)
The five year returns are:
WGRNX: 1.25% (per year, annualized)
MDISX: -0.36%
MQIFX: -0.41%
At the same time, the Mutual Series have remained fairly true to the traditional value orientation, mixing value and distressed securities. Wintergreen has drifted well off into the growth arena. Wintergreen's five year risk rating (per M*), while still below average, is higher than Beacon's or Quest's low risk rating. This is clearly reflected in its 2008 performance (where it lost about 13% more than the Mutual Series funds lost), and in its 2009 performance (where it gained about 11% more than the Mutual Series funds gained).
Given the relative differences in risk profiles, I would consider the Mutual Series funds' performance on a par with Wintergreen's. And they have remained true in style and portfolio to Heinze'/Price's style. (Rather remarkable, given the management turnover at Franklin.) It turns out that these funds were keepers.
Is this new? It appeared that Yacktman funds are not listed neither under Managers nor Yacktman funds in Fidelity.
For now the most recent SEC filing, SAI. On page 43, it stated that only "service" class is offered while the Investor and Institutional shares are planned but not available.
http://managersinvest.onlineprospectus.net/managersinvest/YacktmanFund/index.html?where=eengine.goToDocument("Statutory Prospectus")
If it follows what Royce funds did - Investor class now available on NTF platform at low minimum, includes 12-b-1 fee (0.25%); the old no-load share now is the Service class shares that require transaction fee. Presumably, Institutional Shares require high minimum ($1M or more) without 12-b-1.
If you try to put an order of $1, you can get an idea on the minimum. $500 was for retirement account. Taxable could be different.
Even with all the changes I still invest with Mutual Series funds while maintaining assess to other Templeton funds, notably Global Bond and Global Total Return Bond. Through the two downturns in the past decade, Mutual Series funds held up quite well. As for Wintergreen fund, there is an institutional share available today with a lower expense ratio.
Again, thank you for the discussion.