MFOHome About Commentary Discussions Funds The Best Resources Support Us!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Categories

In this Discussion

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

M* Fund Times 5/23/2013

InvestorInvestor
edited May 2013 in Fund Discussions
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=597851

* T. Rowe Expands Target-Date Business With New Series
* Harbor and Columbia Drop Subadvisor Marsico
* Catherine Wood Leaves AllianceBernstein
* Oppenheimer Discovery Closing to New Investors
* Osterweis Adds to its Fixed-Income Team
* Calamos to Launch Dividend Fund, Mid-Growth Fund
* Portfolio Manager Changes at John Hancock
* Litman Gregory Adjusts Subadivsor Lineup, Merges Value Fund

Comments

  • ShostakovichShostakovich
    Picking up on a note in the Osterweis news: I always get a chuckle when funds boast about how large their asset base is, since its not always a good thing for investors. This is not a slam on Osterweis, but on the industry in general.

  • Sven
    Reply to @Shostakovich: Being large is not necessary of being successful. Osterweis is a small shop based in the Bay area managing many of the "old money". They invest conservatively across the board. The addition of an experienced manager may be a good thing since there may be a constraint on the analysis work in short duration high yield. In their annual reports they go into great length in discussing specific bond selection and how they position themselves when the rate goes back up again. Other shops only boost their 1-, 3-, 5- and 10 year returns.
  • ShostakovichShostakovich
    Reply to @Sven: I'm not sure what your point is. I have nothing against Osterweis. My intent was merely to laugh whenever a fund company boasts at AUM. I do not think mega-AUM is a recipe for success; so we seem to be in agreement there.
  • Sven
    Reply to @Shostakovich: I sincerely apologize that I have mis-read your message. Again I am sorry.
  • InvestorInvestor
    edited May 2013
    Reply to @Shostakovich: Among the industry pairs fund shop's success is measured their ability to gather assets. In theory the success of funds brings others to the same shop. Larger asset base is a good thing as the fund shop can also take advantage of economies of scale for some of the services they obtain. It may even help investors by lowering fund expense. And yes, those shops that do not manage their fund sizes by closing later get into trouble with under-performance and investor exodus.

    So, I have no problem with the fund shop boasting larger size. It is the capacity of individual funds and the ability of manager to put money to work consistent with the strategy that matters.
Sign In or Register to comment.