Which is to say, Morningstar has noticed them. The article "
Three Promising Diversified Emerging Markets Funds" profiles Seafarer (SFGIX), Thomas White Emerging Markets (TWEMX) and Columbia Acorn Emerging Markets (CAGAX).
Seafarer is seen as promising for three reasons: Andrew's work with MACSX, his ability to invest in a variety of asset classes and the fund's excellent performance since launch. $39M in AUM, 1.40% e.r. (misreported on the fund profile, right in the story), $2500 minimum.
White is seen as promising for a comparable array of reasons: same team manages this fund as manages Thomas White International (TWWDX), they use the same "quant-driven, value-oriented strategy" at both, and the fund has comfortable (if not hugely) outperformed its benchmark since launch. $32M in AUM, 1.46% e.r., $2500 minimum.
Columbia has the same "quality-oriented stock-selection" as Columbia Acorn International which features "a distinctive portfolio with a nice mix of bolder and tamer traits," four experienced managers and has more or less clubbed its e.m. and small cap e.m. peer groups. $147M in AUM, 1.77% e.r., 5.75% front load, $2000 minimum.
The only commenter on the article point to the new Scout Emerging Markets Fund (SEMFX) as an option. Launched in November, pretty much fully invested but still held up very well in the late spring e.m. sag. $11M in AUM, 1.4% e.r. after waivers, $1000 minimum. By far my biggest hesitancy here comes from the recent decisions to liquidate Scout Stock and Scout International Discovery. Those might have been good (or necessary) business decisions, but they do raise serious questions about Scout's ability to maintain viable equity funds.
I'm meeting with the Fosters at Morningstar and have asked to meet with Scout's chief equity strategist as well. Let me know if you have questions to raise or comments to pass along.
As ever,
David
Comments