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.
Considering adding assets to SIGIX, (have invested with them since inception), but am also considering DODEX. DODEX has a short existence, but the Dodge & Cox team is very deep and has a lower ER. SIGIX does have a better track record, but both funds have lower Price/Earnings and Price/Cash Flow ratios relative to domestic funds and ETFs. Interested in your comments or thoughts? -
D&C is a fine house. Low fees for actively managed funds. I was there (no longer am) about 20 years. Always felt like they were a bit more aggressive on their equity investments than some, which paid off handsomely if you had the patience to hang in there. Just an unscientific impression. Privately held (I like) and a history dating back to the 1930s.
D&C is a fine house. Low fees for actively managed funds. I was there (no longer am) about 20 years. Always felt like they were a bit more aggressive on their equity investments than some, which paid off handsomely if you had the patience to hang in there. Just an unscientific impression. Privately held (I like) and a history dating back to the 1930s.
I also like D&C for many of the reasons you state. 1) Privately held 2) Low expense ratios for active funds (right out of the gate) 3) Team-managed 4) Managers and analysts are long-tenured 5) Never created mutual funds to take advantage of latest investments fads - manage only 7 distinct funds
Thanks to all of you for your comments, I am in DODWX and have been happy, will continue with SIGIX and probably add a small position in DODEX, thanks again for your comments
Comments
Devesh Shah had a conversation with Andrew Foster @ Seafarer Funds several months ago.
D&C is a fine house. Low fees for actively managed funds. I was there (no longer am) about 20 years. Always felt like they were a bit more aggressive on their equity investments than some, which paid off handsomely if you had the patience to hang in there. Just an unscientific impression. Privately held (I like) and a history dating back to the 1930s.
1) Privately held
2) Low expense ratios for active funds (right out of the gate)
3) Team-managed
4) Managers and analysts are long-tenured
5) Never created mutual funds to take advantage of latest investments fads - manage only 7 distinct funds