Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

Oceanstone Fund

edited September 2013 in Fund Discussions
I had been keeping an eye on this one. Its manager didn't have any investment in the fgnd. More importantly its trustee was Rajendra Prasad of Prasad Growth Fund which used to be pathetic fund and I think now is extinct, so that had given me pause. Also assets were very low implying fund would disappear.

So I had completely forgotten about it, and remembered it accidently. Has done pretty well if I must say so and is currently 60 cash. I expect manager trades frequently based on prospectus, so not very tax efficient. But something is going on here. Cannot tell whether talent or fluke.

OSFDX.

Comments

  • Look at the graph rather than the numbers. This fund outperformed its benchmark (smallcap index) in 2007, 2008, and 2009, but primarily during 3/1/09-8/1/09, when it shot way up. Total return during 2009 was 264%! However, from 2010 on it has been performing about the same as the index, and during 2013 has been underperforming it. Morningstar gives it 5 stars, but this is not a fund I would invest in.
  • edited September 2013
    David has previously discussed the nonsensical nature of this fund's strategy/methodology and the reclusiveness of its PM, Mr. Wang.

    I too have never been able to follow Mr. Wang's explanations of why he buys or sells equities, unlike say the case studies Mr. Berkowitz provides at Fairholme.

    Its landmark trade was Avis, I believe, in 2009. The huge gain from that trade alone will result in five star ratings for years.

    I suspect this lack of communication, deliberate or not, is the reason OSFDX has never attracted AUM commensurate with its superior performance, over past 5, 3, and 1 year evaluation periods.

    Today, it charges 1.8% ER for a portfolio with 65% cash.

    I stand with Vintage on this:
    Cannot tell whether talent or fluke.
    If Mr. Wang does have trading talent and wants to grow AUM, he needs to hire a communications expert to better convey the fund's fundamental strengths.

    If not, it will likely take the natural course.
  • Frankly I was worried if this was a Madoff like situation. Not sure if David called the fund. I'm thinking I will call and figure out what's happening with this fund.

    And assets are not too shappy at around $35M. I mean see some other funds like BRTNX have less than $7M. Who has more publicitiy?:D
  • Reply to @VintageFreak: Ha! If Mr. Dodson is ever lucky enough to score an Avis like 2009 trade, BRTNX would be inundated. But that's just not happened with OSFDX.

    If you get any response from Mr. Wang, please share with the board. Thanks Vintage.
  • Reply to @VintageFreak: Here's my April 2012 grump about the fund.

    (Headline) James Wang is not “the greatest investor you’ve never heard of”

    Investment News gave that title to the reclusive manager of the Oceanstone Fund (OSFDX) who was the only manager to refuse to show up to receive a Lipper mutual fund award. He’s also refused all media attempts to arrange an interview and even the chairman of his board of trustees sounds modestly intimidated by him. Fortune has itself worked up into a tizzy about the guy.

    Nonetheless, the combination of “reclusive” and an outstanding five-year record still don’t add up to “the greatest investor you’ve never heard of.” Since you read the Observer, you’ve surely heard of him, repeatedly. As I’ve noted in a February 2012 story:

    the manager’s explanation of his investment strategy is nonsense. He keeps repeating the magic formula: IV = IV divided by E, times E. No more than a high school grasp of algebra tells you that this formula tells you nothing. I shared it with two professors of mathematics, who both gave it the technical term “vacuous.” It works for any two numbers (4 = 4 divided by 2, times 2) but it doesn’t allow you to derive one value from the other.

    the shareholder reports say nothing. The entire text of the fund’s 2010 Annual Report, for example, is three paragraphs. One reports the NAV change over the year, the second repeats the formula (above) and the third is vacuous boilerplate about how the market’s unpredictable.

    the fund’s portfolio turns over at triple the average rate, is exceedingly concentrated (20 names) and is sitting on a 30% cash stake. Those are all unusual, and unexplained.

    That’s not evidence of investing genius though it might bear on the old adage, “sometimes things other than cream rise to the top.”
Sign In or Register to comment.