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.
It's a balanced article. I was quoted in the article:
"Devesh Shah is a big fan of this approach. A retired partner at Goldman Sachs who now writes for the Mutual Fund Observer, Shah says investors have to choose whether they "want to be pure" about their definition of emerging-market stocks - and sacrifice potential returns in the process - or "trust the fund manager." Shah's chosen to trust Kaufman. He began investing in the Artisan fund last year."
I would encourage you to read this article. Ye understands many people on this Discussion Board don't have a Bloomberg subscription. I have a pdf of the article and will attach it shortly to this post.
He's written a series of interesting pieces lately (successful active managers, Bill Gross's grumbling and a lot on the debt market), but Bloomberg generally restricts access to its subscribers.
Isn't the fella at GQG doing the same in his international funds...the GS Intl fund he runs holds close to 20% in US stocks such as NVDA, AMD, META etc etc. NVDA is the top holding in his emerging market fund...always boosting returns as well...smoke and mirrors, slippery dealings or just good investing?
Slippery to me is when dealings are secretive. Everything is in the open here. Information is available for discerning investors to make appropriate choices.
The burden on the fund manager is to provide all regulatory disclosures and the burden on the fund holder is to read the disclosures, manager commentary, etc. If the manager is not doing anything to prevent the holder from knowing what the manger is doing (e.g., month end or quarter end window dressing, or intra period trades, etc.), not sure what the issue is.
IMO, for an emerging market fund to invest in developed market stocks is like US stock funds holding more cash than needed for redemptions. Some US stock funds hold as much as 80% cash for long stretches of time and several hold 20% cash. Even many balanced / allocation funds hold good amount of cash, now yielding 5%, and why not.
I see it differently. if you call a fund an emerging markets fund it's my position that the majority of rational folks would not expect it to contain US based companies such as avgo, meta, googl etc.
It’s a good point to think about. How did we, as investors, go, from : give me the best group of stocks that can help increase my future buying power, to: let me be diversified across asset classes, across factor risks like small and large and developed and emerging and domestic and growth and value.
It’s simple. True diversification has genuine benefits. Uncorrelated assets put together lower the portfolios volatility and improve the chance of staying in the game longer.
But there’s a problem. World today looks very different than the world in such academic theory was prescribed. All equity assets are now singularly correlated. All corporations as they become bigger are now self diversifying by getting revenues from world over. This is perhaps why the diversification of equity asset classes has not done much for investors lately.
I see the point about asset class mixing of domestic and emerging. But maybe this is a solution of the underlying problem that diversification is not what it used to be. Maybe we should adapt our thinking.
Until the world turns over and diversification works once again, we need to re think the potential winners.
You make very good points, @Devo. Several of your arguments could serve to buttress the choice of the "go-anywhere" style of portfolio management. I could be persuaded that an amateur investor ought not choose funds or securities on the basis of asset, size, style, factor, etc., but that he/she should seek out the best bunch of PMs who have totally free rein. I think it was Mike Holland who said many moons ago that all an investor need was a good balanced fund.
Not too long ago I sought out a global allocation fund that invested in all ranges of assets, regardless of region or size. There seemed to be very few such animals, and even fewer that excelled. Maybe it's too much to expect of a single management team. RPGAX and FPACX are pretty good and FBBAX has had some decent years while MDLOX fails to excite at all. I find that I'm not ready to consolidate my stable of funds and put the whole pie into two or three offerings. It might work for someone else.
"Go-Anywhere" funds sound good in theory assuming management is highly skilled. It can be quite challenging to incorporate these funds into an existing portfolio.
"Not too long ago I sought out a global allocation fund that invested in all ranges of assets, regardless of region or size."
Many moons ago I tried for several years to achieve something close to that using various funds of the American Funds company (without loads). I wasn't terribly successful.
Many investors are plenty happy to not be invested in anything other than US Domestic stocks. They have been right. That's also a kind of Go anywhere allocation in that one is going Nowhere. I struggle to find perfect investment answers to any problems. Just trials and errors and wins and losses.
Comments
He's written a series of interesting pieces lately (successful active managers, Bill Gross's grumbling and a lot on the debt market), but Bloomberg generally restricts access to its subscribers.
I guess it depends on your point of view and what is stated in the prospectus.
Best Regards,
Baseball Fan
IMO, for an emerging market fund to invest in developed market stocks is like US stock funds holding more cash than needed for redemptions. Some US stock funds hold as much as 80% cash for long stretches of time and several hold 20% cash. Even many balanced / allocation funds hold good amount of cash, now yielding 5%, and why not.
It’s simple. True diversification has genuine benefits. Uncorrelated assets put together lower the portfolios volatility and improve the chance of staying in the game longer.
But there’s a problem. World today looks very different than the world in such academic theory was prescribed. All equity assets are now singularly correlated. All corporations as they become bigger are now self diversifying by getting revenues from world over. This is perhaps why the diversification of equity asset classes has not done much for investors lately.
I see the point about asset class mixing of domestic and emerging. But maybe this is a solution of the underlying problem that diversification is not what it used to be. Maybe we should adapt our thinking.
Until the world turns over and diversification works once again, we need to re think the potential winners.
Not too long ago I sought out a global allocation fund that invested in all ranges of assets, regardless of region or size. There seemed to be very few such animals, and even fewer that excelled. Maybe it's too much to expect of a single management team. RPGAX and FPACX are pretty good and FBBAX has had some decent years while MDLOX fails to excite at all. I find that I'm not ready to consolidate my stable of funds and put the whole pie into two or three offerings. It might work for someone else.
It can be quite challenging to incorporate these funds into an existing portfolio.
Many moons ago I tried for several years to achieve something close to that using various funds of the American Funds company (without loads). I wasn't terribly successful.