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.
I could not find anywhere on this forum if this fund had been discussed. It is a fund of fund managed by an alternative consultant to institutions. Looks interesting. Is anyone familiar with it?
I did look at it, then bought ARLSX which is way cheaper. I'm the first one to ignore ER for a compelling story. However between the two funds I had to go with ARLSX.
It Sounds Good When You Read Astons Web Page About It, But I Have Looked At it Before And I Dont Think It Performs That Great. For Example Between 2010 And 2012 It Returned 13.90%. One Of The Funds It Holds Is FPACX Which Returned 25.39%. I Would Just Buy FPACX
Looks like you are actually paying 15 bp less for ARLSX (actual ER 3.16%) than ALSNX (actual ER 3.31%). ARLSX is indeed cheaper, but it is not cheap. Of course nowhere in the M* fund profile is there any mention of the actual ER for ARLSX, which is clearly seen, front and center, on the current prospectus. Yes, I know it is M* policy to understate actual expense ratios paid by investors for certain funds, but it is clearly misleading and irresponsible. Just my opinion.
Reply to @kevindow: ARLSX ER after waivers is 1.70 I thought. I don't think it sustains itself otherwise. I certainly will sell if they don't keep the waivers in place.
And nothing needs to be explained for stating the irresponsibility of M*. It does not exist for the individual investor, and only for the fund industry. Anyone who does not share that opinion is welcome to theirs. I'll keep mine.
Reply to @ducrow: Yes, I don't have problem with fund of funds, but 3.31 probably includes the expenses of underlying funds on top of what Lake Partners is charging, which seems to be charging just for doing "asset allocation".
Not another alternative fund. Uhgg!!! A fund of funds no less. I for one am now starting to get embarrassed that we - I have been hood-winked by a bunch of marketing executives. There must be money to be made by the fund companies or they wouldn't keep putting them out. But hey, looks interesting and intriguing. There are a few funds inside this fund that I already own.
Wait, why would I buy this fund if I already own some of the funds in it? Some of the funds in it I wouldn't buy on their own. I'm confused... and I guess feeling a little sarcastic today. Probably because my Bills got clobbered by the Redskins yesterday. Oh well, maybe next year.
As I read the prospectus, after all fee waivers, right here and right now you are actually paying a 3.16% expense ratio. You may wish to call the fund company, but I am confident that is what you are paying. Shame on M* for misleading investors and hiding behind irresponsible and indefensible "policies."
Shorting is expensive, ditto fund of funds running and composition, and the two together even moreso. I don't recall anyone on this forum complained about RNCOX (cheaper fund of funds) when David S wrote it up.
Per the prospectus, ARLSX is "1.7% Net Exp Ratio Excluding Div. & Int. Exp on Short Sales and Acq. Fund Fees; [one footnote adds"] The Advisor is contractually obligated to waive management fee and/or reimburse ordinary expenses through February 28, 2014. The total operating expenses are 3.16% for Class-N and 2.91% for Class-I. Total operating expenses includes dividend and interest expense on short sales of 1.41% and acquired fund fees of 0.05%,which are not included in the net expense ratio." There are other footnotes covering the area too. Fido has the ER as of Feb as 1.75%; their data feeds are usually pretty good, so perhaps it has dropped a touch since Feb.
Whatever. Just retired, I am happy owning a fair amount of high-trading ARLSX, but I know what I have and why it costs what it does. I think of it as a sort of balanced fund. ALSNX looks very interesting, though I'm not interested enough to buy.
It's tough having your favorite team be as jinxed as the Buffalo Bills. This is the franchise that won the '64 and 65' AFL championships, but lost to KC in the '66 championship for the chance to make NFL history - be in the first Super Bowl game. Then in the late 80's, early 90's, they assemble one of the highest scoring offenses in NFL history and go to 4 straight Super Bowls - and lose them all. Now, 13 straight years of no playoff games, and counting.
Comments
Hi VF,
Looks like you are actually paying 15 bp less for ARLSX (actual ER 3.16%) than ALSNX (actual ER 3.31%). ARLSX is indeed cheaper, but it is not cheap. Of course nowhere in the M* fund profile is there any mention of the actual ER for ARLSX, which is clearly seen, front and center, on the current prospectus. Yes, I know it is M* policy to understate actual expense ratios paid by investors for certain funds, but it is clearly misleading and irresponsible. Just my opinion.
Kevin
And nothing needs to be explained for stating the irresponsibility of M*. It does not exist for the individual investor, and only for the fund industry. Anyone who does not share that opinion is welcome to theirs. I'll keep mine.
I own FPACX.
Wait, why would I buy this fund if I already own some of the funds in it? Some of the funds in it I wouldn't buy on their own. I'm confused... and I guess feeling a little sarcastic today. Probably because my Bills got clobbered by the Redskins yesterday. Oh well, maybe next year.
As I read the prospectus, after all fee waivers, right here and right now you are actually paying a 3.16% expense ratio. You may wish to call the fund company, but I am confident that is what you are paying. Shame on M* for misleading investors and hiding behind irresponsible and indefensible "policies."
Kevin
Per the prospectus, ARLSX is "1.7% Net Exp Ratio Excluding Div. & Int. Exp on Short Sales and Acq. Fund Fees; [one footnote adds"] The Advisor is contractually obligated to waive management fee and/or reimburse ordinary expenses through February 28, 2014. The total operating expenses are 3.16% for Class-N and 2.91% for Class-I. Total operating expenses includes dividend and interest expense on short sales of 1.41% and acquired fund fees of 0.05%,which are not included in the net expense ratio." There are other footnotes covering the area too. Fido has the ER as of Feb as 1.75%; their data feeds are usually pretty good, so perhaps it has dropped a touch since Feb.
Whatever. Just retired, I am happy owning a fair amount of high-trading ARLSX, but I know what I have and why it costs what it does. I think of it as a sort of balanced fund. ALSNX looks very interesting, though I'm not interested enough to buy.
Regards,
Ted
It's tough having your favorite team be as jinxed as the Buffalo Bills. This is the franchise that won the '64 and 65' AFL championships, but lost to KC in the '66 championship for the chance to make NFL history - be in the first Super Bowl game. Then in the late 80's, early 90's, they assemble one of the highest scoring offenses in NFL history and go to 4 straight Super Bowls - and lose them all. Now, 13 straight years of no playoff games, and counting.
Yup, L-e-i-n-h-a-r-t. Go Bills...