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
David Snowball's December Commentary Is Now Available
Just doing a little research on the RiverPark CMBS fund David profiled under "Your 2019 funds watchlist," and the fund history seems a little sketchy, or maybe just poorly reported/covered by the usual online suspects.
The fund's own fact sheet shows performance back to 2010, with a footnote saying that from mid-2010 thru Q3 '16, it was an interval (private) fund. So far, so good. Then, from the beginning of Q4 '16 to to Nov. 12, 2018, when it "was reorganized as an open-end mutual fund," it was something else. Per a brief mention in David's profile, it was apparently a CEF (?).
But M* reports results back to 2016 as if it had been an OEF all that time, but shows zero portfolio info on it, as if it's not a fund they covered until just recently. MarketWatch shows nothing but a current price, no history whatsoever, and Yahoo shows prices as an OEF back to Dec. 4, 2017 (huh?). I web-searched for a CEF that may have existed for the "missing" two years (Q4 2016 to Nov 12 this year) with no luck.
A mystery, then, at least to this kid.
Edit: okay, finally found a reference to what happened in 2016. RiverPark took over the private interval fund (technically closed-end, but not a publicly traded closed-end fund as most of us think of the term) and kept it going as a private interval fund until Nov. 12 this year.
I can't reconcile M* or Yahoo's coverage with the apparent reality, but then that's not an unusual thing. Suffice to say, the fund is now in a format that exposes the investor to liquidity risk, but with an attempt to provide a "quality" overlay to limit that risk. However, I'd think the history as a private fund is not 100% transferable to expectations for the brand new open-end fund.
I wrote just a bit more about the fund and its history in the "Launch Alert." I have tremendous problem using Morningstar sometimes (frequently you get a "no such fund" when you use their search, then Google finds the fund on Morningstar and suddenly all is well - why?) and this fund is one of those places. Some parts of the site give it a two-year record, other parts limit it to one year. MFO, agnostic as we are about the wrapper, gives it a two year record.
The interval fund structure made a world of investing sense because it allowed the manager to invest in securities with limited liquidity, confident that he wouldn't have to deal with flighty investors demand liquidity (i.e., their money back) on some random Thursday. Sadly, investors weren't getting comfortable with the idea and an exceedingly solid strategy was languishing.
You're right, the open-ending may change the portfolio dynamic, hence the "put it on your watch list" positioning.
Thanks for the reply, David. Sometimes it takes a fair bit of perseverance to figure out fund and manager history and the other important details, and I appreciate the time you must put in doing that research for the benefit of all of us here.
Comments
The fund's own fact sheet shows performance back to 2010, with a footnote saying that from mid-2010 thru Q3 '16, it was an interval (private) fund. So far, so good. Then, from the beginning of Q4 '16 to to Nov. 12, 2018, when it "was reorganized as an open-end mutual fund," it was something else. Per a brief mention in David's profile, it was apparently a CEF (?).
But M* reports results back to 2016 as if it had been an OEF all that time, but shows zero portfolio info on it, as if it's not a fund they covered until just recently. MarketWatch shows nothing but a current price, no history whatsoever, and Yahoo shows prices as an OEF back to Dec. 4, 2017 (huh?). I web-searched for a CEF that may have existed for the "missing" two years (Q4 2016 to Nov 12 this year) with no luck.
A mystery, then, at least to this kid.
Edit: okay, finally found a reference to what happened in 2016. RiverPark took over the private interval fund (technically closed-end, but not a publicly traded closed-end fund as most of us think of the term) and kept it going as a private interval fund until Nov. 12 this year.
I can't reconcile M* or Yahoo's coverage with the apparent reality, but then that's not an unusual thing. Suffice to say, the fund is now in a format that exposes the investor to liquidity risk, but with an attempt to provide a "quality" overlay to limit that risk. However, I'd think the history as a private fund is not 100% transferable to expectations for the brand new open-end fund.
I wrote just a bit more about the fund and its history in the "Launch Alert." I have tremendous problem using Morningstar sometimes (frequently you get a "no such fund" when you use their search, then Google finds the fund on Morningstar and suddenly all is well - why?) and this fund is one of those places. Some parts of the site give it a two-year record, other parts limit it to one year. MFO, agnostic as we are about the wrapper, gives it a two year record.
The interval fund structure made a world of investing sense because it allowed the manager to invest in securities with limited liquidity, confident that he wouldn't have to deal with flighty investors demand liquidity (i.e., their money back) on some random Thursday. Sadly, investors weren't getting comfortable with the idea and an exceedingly solid strategy was languishing.
You're right, the open-ending may change the portfolio dynamic, hence the "put it on your watch list" positioning.
David
Best, AJ