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
CrossingBridge Nordic High Income Bond Fund in registration
FWIW my position in NRCDX at Fidelity shows a total distribution of $0.0703/sh on an ex-date of 12/26 with a pay date of 12/31. The market value of the fund decreased from $10.10/sh at the open minus a price change of $0.0617/sh to close at $10.0403. I can wait until the pay date to see what's what.
Update 12/30: According to my position data @7am CST I reinvested the distribution at $10.0422/share. However by noon the data showed a reinvestment price of $10.10/share
@Derf, I think CrossingBridge can fix this if they act right away.
Hi @David_Snowball (Prof. Snowball), do you mind alerting David Sherman to my yesterday's post in this thread? I could send an email to John Connors but this matter needs David's attention.
@BaluBalu, have you tried contacting Mr. Conner with your concerns or questions as David Sherman suggested at the start of this thread? I am an investor in this fund and, maybe by ignorance, I don't share your concerns.
There is certainly a mismatch in the generally announced ex-div date 12/26/24 & the ex-div date on which the exchange reduced the price, 12/27/24.
In cases where there is a discrepancy, the official ex-div date is that on which the exchange takes action. All else are guesses or estimates. Investors may be confused, & sometimes the companies too.
It could be that the firm is in touch with the SEC about this & may be waiting for a response. It's a bond fund with little daily price changes. So, the error may be just let go, or corrected retroactively. As it is, those reinvesting got a slightly higher price by this mismatch.
There is certainly a mismatch in the generally announced ex-div date 12/26/24 & the ex-div date on which the exchange reduced the price, 12/27/24.
In cases where there is a discrepancy, the official ex-div date is that on which the exchange takes action. All else are guesses or estimates. Investors may be confused, & sometimes the companies too.
It could be that the firm is in touch with the SEC about this & may be waiting for a response. It's a bond fund with little daily price changes. So, the error may be just let go, or corrected retroactively. As it is, those reinvesting got a slightly higher price by this mismatch.
I do not see a difference between the fund and exchange actions. anyone that owns will tell us their Div was reinvested at a brokerage at the higher $10.10 because that is the reinvestment NAV the fund provided to the brokerage. It is in the best interest of the fund to be transparent about how the mistake happened and how it gets fixed. It is not just about the dollars impacted when there is a business process failure.
For lack of clarity and quick remedial action, I just held back from buying into it today using my large called CD proceeds (5% of PV). Will move to a different fund company.
I did poke Sherman on your behalf. The short version of his short response was "It will all be handled appropriately. US Bank is aware of the NAV adjustment. The mechanics are above my pay grade."
CrossingBridge is keenly aware of the processing error that resulted in a stated NAV that was artificially high. Further, as many of you noticed, the NAV was properly adjusted the following day. Unfortunately, a dividend was also made during this period. For those that reinvested dividends and/or had fund flows, the appropriate correction has been requested to the various brokerage platforms. The intent is for no shareholder to be materially adversely impacted. Some brokerage platforms have reacted quicker than others but we anticipate all will be corrected. Of course it is ultimately the brokerage platforms decision. We have done all necessary actions. I acknowledge the entire process was a bit slower than my liking but the holiday week interfered.
Should you have additional questions or concerns, please reach out to [email protected]
For the future, speaking to John Conner is a more appropriate venue rather than speculation on the discussion board since he can provide facts and updates rather than folks jumping to conclusions without complete knowledge of actions being taken.
CrossingBridge is keenly aware of the processing error that resulted in a stated NAV that was artificially high. Further, as many of you noticed, the NAV was properly adjusted the following day. Unfortunately, a dividend was also made during this period. For those that reinvested dividends and/or had fund flows, the appropriate correction has been requested to the various brokerage platforms. The intent is for no shareholder to be materially adversely impacted. Some brokerage platforms have reacted quicker than others but we anticipate all will be corrected. Of course it is ultimately the brokerage platforms decision. We have done all necessary actions. I acknowledge the entire process was a bit slower than my liking but the holiday week interfered.
Should you have additional questions or concerns, please reach out to [email protected]
For the future, speaking to John Conner is a more appropriate venue rather than speculation on the discussion board since he can provide facts and updates rather than folks jumping to conclusions without complete knowledge of actions being taken.
Please point to the speculations and related conclusions you are referring to - point to the posts you find objectionable. We in this forum always had your back whenever I and a few here thought any poster was even remotely out of line. So, please let us know specific posts you disagree with, rather than a general, broad brush chiding that would be of no use for any remediation.
The fund could have posted on the fund website immediately after the issue was brought to your attention, even if the post is as simple as “we are looking into it and look forward to updating,” (and then may be tag it here), rather than silence for 10 days.
Everyone calling John is not productive. When an unusual incident happens, getting info through anyone other than from the source only results in miscommunication and speculation. One of the reasons why people that spoke with John did not post their conversation. I am sure this is not an insight to anyone.
By the way, we prefer direct communication with shareholders and do not mind multiple inquiries. As I have mentioned in the past, the discussion board has limitations as communication medium.
By the way, we prefer direct communication with shareholders and do not mind multiple inquiries. As I have mentioned in the past, the discussion board has limitations as communication medium.
The first sentence seems a reasonable suggestion to me. I believe @davidsherman has made this suggestion in the past. Now that I own some Crossing Bridge funds I don't want to pay any of them to monitor this board for customer support purposes.
I have been on the web since 1997. The second sentence is an accurate description of any discussion boards that I have ever been on.
Feel free to continue to entertain ourselves spending more time talking about shareholder prudence, rather than informing shareholders that adequate measures have been put in place to prevent future failures.
No one expects or expected NRCDX to post its shareholder communication on this or any other discussion board. All communication pertinent to shareholders should be available on the fund website. If shareholders that invest through a brokerage need to call a fund, IMO, the fund communication is inadequate or their website is not designed well enough for shareholders to find necessary information easily. I have held some funds for decades and never had to call those funds.
I actually went to the NRCDX fund website and SEC website looking for information about the issue raised here.
Comments
Update 12/30:
According to my position data @7am CST I reinvested the distribution at $10.0422/share.
However by noon the data showed a reinvestment price of $10.10/share
Maybe the Norwegians took a cut.
Hi @David_Snowball (Prof. Snowball), do you mind alerting David Sherman to my yesterday's post in this thread? I could send an email to John Connors but this matter needs David's attention.
It is not like the firm does not charge enough ER to have sufficient resources to have proper processes and controls.
https://big-bang-investors.proboards.com/thread/3319/crossingbridge-nordic-high-income-registration
Was hoping for the 9% -10% range once settled in. Curious to see where it lands.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=nrdcx
Added page down
In cases where there is a discrepancy, the official ex-div date is that on which the exchange takes action. All else are guesses or estimates. Investors may be confused, & sometimes the companies too.
It could be that the firm is in touch with the SEC about this & may be waiting for a response. It's a bond fund with little daily price changes. So, the error may be just let go, or corrected retroactively. As it is, those reinvesting got a slightly higher price by this mismatch.
For lack of clarity and quick remedial action, I just held back from buying into it today using my large called CD proceeds (5% of PV). Will move to a different fund company.
I did poke Sherman on your behalf. The short version of his short response was "It will all be handled appropriately. US Bank is aware of the NAV adjustment. The mechanics are above my pay grade."
So that I don't have more to share.
Should you have additional questions or concerns, please reach out to [email protected]
For the future, speaking to John Conner is a more appropriate venue rather than speculation on the discussion board since he can provide facts and updates rather than folks jumping to conclusions without complete knowledge of actions being taken.
Thanks for the update.
Please point to the speculations and related conclusions you are referring to - point to the posts you find objectionable. We in this forum always had your back whenever I and a few here thought any poster was even remotely out of line. So, please let us know specific posts you disagree with, rather than a general, broad brush chiding that would be of no use for any remediation.
The fund could have posted on the fund website immediately after the issue was brought to your attention, even if the post is as simple as “we are looking into it and look forward to updating,” (and then may be tag it here), rather than silence for 10 days.
Everyone calling John is not productive. When an unusual incident happens, getting info through anyone other than from the source only results in miscommunication and speculation. One of the reasons why people that spoke with John did not post their conversation. I am sure this is not an insight to anyone.
I have been on the web since 1997. The second sentence is an accurate description of any discussion boards that I have ever been on.
No one expects or expected NRCDX to post its shareholder communication on this or any other discussion board. All communication pertinent to shareholders should be available on the fund website. If shareholders that invest through a brokerage need to call
a fund, IMO, the fund communication is inadequate or their website is not designed well enough for shareholders to find necessary information easily. I have held some funds for decades and never had to call those funds.
I actually went to the NRCDX fund website and SEC website looking for information about the issue raised here.