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.
What happened with Neuberger Berman Genesis (NBGNX)? The NAV shot way up on Dec 11, almost like a reverse 1-for-2 split, but the numbers don't quite line up. Have there been any announcements? I couldn't find anything on nb.com. Thx!
Seems like the perfect example of where cost matters.
Each share class charges a different set of fees (Expense Ratio & Loads, 12-b1, etc) causing most of this distortion in the NAVs of the same fund over time. Not sure if this "split" is in the best interest of the shareholder or the marketing department.
The advisor share class NBGAX (1.35% ER) is almost 80% more expensive as the institutional share class NBGIX (0.86% ER). There is a share class NBGSX (R6 shares) that has an ER of 0.75%.
Share Classes:
Looked at over the last 29 years (1988- 2017), a $10k invested in the same fund but different share classes would have netted the following: NBGIX = $313,098 (over 12% more in the investors pocket than NBGAX Advisor share class) The Advisor "share" was 12% more than Institutional "share" NBGAX = $274,324 NBGNX = $301,654 NBGEX = $298,384
Finally, This fund seems to manage downside risk very well so you pay for that and this fund seems to have a track record to prove it can manage downside risk better than many of its managed peers and especially the index (VISGX).
Also, over the last five years PLTIX seems to have exhibited some positive "Factor Based" results in the Samll Cap Growth space.
Over the last 10 years 3 other funds that compared well against NBGSX (PRDSX, VRTGX, and CCALX):
Comments
You are correct.
See this November 17, 2017 filing:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/44402/000089843217001047/a497.htm
Seems like the perfect example of where cost matters.
Each share class charges a different set of fees (Expense Ratio & Loads, 12-b1, etc) causing most of this distortion in the NAVs of the same fund over time. Not sure if this "split" is in the best interest of the shareholder or the marketing department.
The advisor share class NBGAX (1.35% ER) is almost 80% more expensive as the institutional share class NBGIX (0.86% ER).
There is a share class NBGSX (R6 shares) that has an ER of 0.75%.
Share Classes:
Looked at over the last 29 years (1988- 2017), a $10k invested in the same fund but different share classes would have netted the following:
NBGIX = $313,098 (over 12% more in the investors pocket than NBGAX Advisor share class) The Advisor "share" was 12% more than Institutional "share"
NBGAX = $274,324
NBGNX = $301,654
NBGEX = $298,384
Finally, This fund seems to manage downside risk very well so you pay for that and this fund seems to have a track record to prove it can manage downside risk better than many of its managed peers and especially the index (VISGX).
Also, over the last five years PLTIX seems to have exhibited some positive "Factor Based" results in the Samll Cap Growth space.
Over the last 10 years 3 other funds that compared well against NBGSX (PRDSX, VRTGX, and CCALX):