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.
Unlike AQR Funds, so far I like what I see with Seafarer Funds. However, I have a standard rule never invest in a new fund until it has a three year track record.
I own it, at just 2.68% of total portfolio. I like that it continues to expand more beyond southeast Asia. Becoming more of an all-world fund, adding a bit more to Latin America and Eastern Europe. Of course, we do not expect it to come to USA and WESTERN Europe. When Foster is able, soon, to pick and choose Vietnamese companies instead of holding the ETF, that is surely to be preferred.
I have been tracking the performance of SFGIX against MAPIX, in which I have funds invested, since SFGIX opened for investment. So far, their performances have been quite similar. If SFGIX continues to increase its exposure away from Asia, I will be interested to see if their performances begin to diverge. That, or significant outperformance by SFGIX, will cause me to look seriously at making an investment in SFGIX.
Reply to @davfor: Just for general information, since it's possible to infer from your post that the funds are similar except for the percentage of Asia exposure, SFGIX and MAPIX are significantly different funds even within their Asia & Pacific holdings. MAPIX is roughly 2/3 invested in developed markets, vs. SFGIX at roughly 1/3. For Japan, it's 25% vs. 4%, and Australasia, it's 8% vs. 0%, respectively.
I've been surprised to see that MACSX, which I recall at least some of us were thinking is the most direct competitor to SFGIX, is also much more heavily invested in developed markets ... like MAPIX, MACSX has about 2/3 of holdings there, with 8% in Japan and more than 11% in Australasia.
SFGIX, at least right now, really doesn't overlap all that much with the two "growth and income" Matthews funds. This has definitely changed my view of the fund, fairly recently.
Reply to @AndyJ: I had noticed the two funds have had different exposures within their Asia/Pacific area investments. But those differences have yet to result in much difference in returns. Perhaps differences will show up if SFGIX continues to diversify its regional exposures. But, perhaps the continuity in Foster's stock picking style will result in returns that continue to be quite similar to MAPIX. I suspect clear differences will emerge. I'm just watching to see if that really happens.
Reply to @davfor: Right, got it. It'll be interesting when there's a significant correction, say like the one in 2011, before SFGIX existed, to see how that all plays out.
Comments
I've been surprised to see that MACSX, which I recall at least some of us were thinking is the most direct competitor to SFGIX, is also much more heavily invested in developed markets ... like MAPIX, MACSX has about 2/3 of holdings there, with 8% in Japan and more than 11% in Australasia.
SFGIX, at least right now, really doesn't overlap all that much with the two "growth and income" Matthews funds. This has definitely changed my view of the fund, fairly recently.