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 have owned fpa crescent for 7 years, i recently sold 1/2 of my position. in funds i really trust i allocate 10% of my money in. in funds i just like i allocate a 5% position. i no longer trust rommick. considering the amount of cash he holds his fund does not hold up any better than my fully invested funds. he is becoming another fairx, which i sold 2 years ago. i replaced fpacx money with arivx. roy
To each his own, but I see no foundation for your comments. The volatility as measured by standard deviation of this fund is much much lower than say the S&P 500 (a fully invested comparison). The worth of FPACX as I see it is in it's downside protection. I see no indication Romick has changed his philosophy in that regard.
Not trying to sway any decision you make. Just don't see where you are coming from by trading a moderate allocation balanced fund for a higher risk small cap fund. Yes, you have the prospect of greater returns, but at greater risk.
By the way, this comment is coming from a guy who has 15% of his 401k in FPACX. Mostly for the favorable risk/reward value this fund gives.
I have to agree with MikeM, he is right-on! I too own FPACX and am very happy with the risk/reward metrics and returns. Rommick has more often than not held a large cash position, with outstanding returns, etcetera. So for me, it is hard to argue with his long-term results.
Furthermore, I have been increasing my position and plan to continue to do so. But again, this is what is good for me. We all have different needs and wants.
In any case Roy, good luck with you investments!!!!!
What observation drives your concern? FPACX has outperformed its peer group YTD and it also outperformed them during the six weeks of turbulence from May 1 - mid June. It's been less volatile that its peer group for about every trailing period I can research.
Too, why switch to ARIVX? As you know, I really like the fund but it doesn't seem to be a functional successor to FPACX. That is, if you had a portfolio slot for "eclectic portfolio, low risk" (roughly FPACX's niche), it doesn't strike me as ARIVX is a match for the description.
Without looking it up, I recall that four years ago, FPACX was closed to new investment, had $800M with a 40% cash level (because SR complained that he could find nothing to buy), and FWIW was in the small-mid value style box. After re-opening and hiring a couple analysts, FPACX now has $6.5B with a 30% cash level and has moved to the mega-cap blend style box. SR has sound rationale for his style shift (as opposed to drift), but the portfolio's character has to have changed in other aspects. SR used to love to dabble in small illiquid workouts and other esoterica. Does he still?
I think that there is strong reason to reduce one's allocation to FPACX, and ARIVX is not a bad choice. Eric Cinnamond (why do I suddenly crave a breakfast pastry?) has a long history at Intrepid and has never been shy about raising cash, unlike full-invested style box dwellers.
Sorry, I do not compute. Like I had declared on this board. I sold TMCGX and was waiting for a correction to buy into ARIVX. Which I did. Don't quite understand why one would replace FPACX with ARIVX.
Perhaps AUXFX might be a worthier replacement to FPACX?
Giving up on Rommick is ridiculous. One of the best investors of our time. You will join the long list of people who left in 99-00 and got completely whipsawed with Rommick outperforming the market by 46% in the following tech crash. Not to say you would be alone, he lost 90% of his assets leading into the tech bubble. but as David reiterated, FPACX has been a top performer in the moderate allocation, and his cash stake is not historically high for the fund (he has held cash stakes north of 40% over the last decade). Also, what funds are you looking at that are fully invested that performed better in 08?
And how exactly has he become FAIRX?? Berkowitz had north of $20 billion earlier this year. Also Berkowitz is a long only equity manager versus Rommick who can go where he wants, fixed income, long/short equity etc.
Comments
Not trying to sway any decision you make. Just don't see where you are coming from by trading a moderate allocation balanced fund for a higher risk small cap fund. Yes, you have the prospect of greater returns, but at greater risk.
By the way, this comment is coming from a guy who has 15% of his 401k in FPACX. Mostly for the favorable risk/reward value this fund gives.
Furthermore, I have been increasing my position and plan to continue to do so. But again, this is what is good for me. We all have different needs and wants.
In any case Roy, good luck with you investments!!!!!
What observation drives your concern? FPACX has outperformed its peer group YTD and it also outperformed them during the six weeks of turbulence from May 1 - mid June. It's been less volatile that its peer group for about every trailing period I can research.
Too, why switch to ARIVX? As you know, I really like the fund but it doesn't seem to be a functional successor to FPACX. That is, if you had a portfolio slot for "eclectic portfolio, low risk" (roughly FPACX's niche), it doesn't strike me as ARIVX is a match for the description.
Curious, as ever,
David
I think that there is strong reason to reduce one's allocation to FPACX, and ARIVX is not a bad choice. Eric Cinnamond (why do I suddenly crave a breakfast pastry?) has a long history at Intrepid and has never been shy about raising cash, unlike full-invested style box dwellers.
Perhaps AUXFX might be a worthier replacement to FPACX?
And how exactly has he become FAIRX?? Berkowitz had north of $20 billion earlier this year. Also Berkowitz is a long only equity manager versus Rommick who can go where he wants, fixed income, long/short equity etc.