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
(Andrew Foster) SFGIX trading sideways since inception in Feb, '12: A good moment to get in now?
I would not buy it because I think MACSX is a better investment, at this time. My experience with david's evaluations has been excellent and I hope you are not disparaging his cogent evaluations.
I was looking to initiate a position in SFGIX for sometime, I did my first buy last week, Plan to make another 3 more buy of equal amount. I have 20% of my taxable investment in (MACSX + MAPIX + MSMLX) and added SFGIX in taxable account.
My attraction to SFGIX is future non-Asian emerging market exposure the fund will give me. After my this round of buys later if the fund performs to my expectation then will further increase investments. Also, This gives me little bit diversification from Mathews fund for my emerging market investment.
David's evaluations of new funds and analysis is of Excellent quality and can't seem to find any other source that I can rely more than him.
MACSX has done a little better YTD, but both have outperformed the EM benchmark:
Like CaryRaleigh points out, SeaFarer is better positioned for emerging markets beyond Asia, with holdings in Latin America, Africa/Middle East, and emerging Europe.
FWIW, I like to hold a minimum of funds. If it were me, I'd consolidate all listed (MACSX + MAPIX + MSMLX) into SFGIX, or SIGIX its institutional equivalent.
I remain impressed with the way Andrew Foster and SeaFarer have launched this new fund.
Will that ER of ( 1.6 % ) drop as the fund grows? that alone makes me look towards MACSX with future investment dollars. I can understand higher fees because of lower AUM and such...but 50 basis points more?
This new fund has caused much confusion for me. I've always thought that Andrew Foster was a fine manager - have not decided if I'm willing to pay that high ER for another fund. I guess if he earns the fee then we're both happy. Still... I must try my best to keep my portfolio expense ratio down ( UNDER 1% ) the best I can. And with my purchase[s] of ARTGX that is under pressure already.
"i would not buy it. any fund i bought that david bought himself has been a looser for me!!!!"
How can you claim that? I own many funds that David has talked about and have been very pleased. Many times David only confirms my brilliance
I've got a small position in SFGIX, in audition mode only for the time being. I've been impressed with the shareholder communication and with his investment theses, and may add more later, but two things give me pause: the E.R., and his clearly stated intention to keep a large overweight to Asia, where imho he's competing directly with MACSX, with its lower E.R. and so far, at least, somewhat better results.
I do want EM stock exposure outside Asia, and the etf EEMV is looking fairly attractive at this point if I don't go for a long-term position in SFGIX.
Scott & Fundalarm raise a good question about your portfolio, Max ....
I already have a heavy emphasis on Asia, which I plan to increase using my existing funds. SFGIX doesn't give me anything I don't already have. I'd like to find a fund that invests in EM ex-Asia.
At Seafarer, our abiding goal as an investment adviser is to deliver long term performance. However, even as I view performance as paramount, I will not consider our firm a success unless it also achieves three ancillary objectives over the long term:
1. Seafarer is dedicated to lowering the costs associated with overseas investment. Investment in developing countries is legitimately an expensive proposition; and the Adviser’s small asset base hampers our ability to pass on further economies at the present moment. However I view it as one of the firm’s central duties to ensure that expenses become more affordable with scale, and over time.
2. Seafarer is determined to increase the transparency associated with its investment in developing countries. My aim is for Seafarer to continuously improve the transparency it offers to its clients, albeit subject to constraints imposed by fiduciary standards, regulation and compliance.
3. My hope is that Seafarer can reduce some of the frustration that often accompanies investment in developing countries. Seafarer’s investment strategies are necessarily exposed to risk, and the results cannot escape the impact of market volatility. However, my hope is that Seafarer’s investment strategies will mitigate at least a portion of this volatility, so that clients may invest with less frustration and more confidence over time.
Reply to @AndyJ: I think Asia will do well over the long-term, but it's going to be a bumpy road in-between now and then as some Asian countries fare better than others and attempted transitioning towards a more consumer-based economy is going to be difficult.
I've said it before - I think the most important "diversification" these days is not large cap/mid-cap/small cap, but being globally diversified - it's an increasingly global economy and EM may not be doing so well right now, but it could easily reverse and US markets may cool very quickly. I don't think there is what I would call "decoupling", but I do think there have been periods over the last 3 years where EM has noticeably outperformed US and vice versa.
However, I wouldn't want to be all developed markets or all EM, and adjusting exposure up and down while remaining diversified can allow one to more likely have a smoother ride and possibly take advantage of downturns in one or the other.
Betting on Asia is fine, but I would not make an enormous (more than 50% of the portfolio) bet on it - as much as I believe in Asia, there is real risk (and/or the opportunity cost of a possibly substantial period of underperformance while you wait for the thesis to play out). I have made a few smallish broad fund bets, as well as a group of individual equities. I don't see really any more being devoted to EM.
If you were building another portfolio what one would you choose? MACSX or SFGIX?
I like that SFGIX has some Japan and Latin America in the mix. With me having so much invested with MAPIX I 've been looking for more investment house diversification. And having money invested outside of Matthews would do just that. But would it?
Lotsa replies. Thanks to all. No, I guess I DON'T need any more EM equity, to tell you the truth. Many moons ago I owned TBGVX, but no longer. I was looking at its unhedged version: TBCUX, and started a thread here about that one in particular, just a moment ago. It's not EM, but heavy in developed Europe. The very idea of Europe could cause me to itch, but the companies in the portfolio are mostly mega-huge, established big-time players. And at the moment I own almost nothing in Europe... I appreciate the thought that was repeated by Scott, who said that GLOBAL, not sector, diversification is most important these days. Glad to read all the replies.
P.S.: This would serve to create an IRA for wifey, who has none at all right now. It would therefore serve to minimize tax due for 2012, because my own IRA will be maxed-out in terms of contributions. She's quite a bit younger. Lotsa time to let it grow, for even up to 26 years before she even reaches age 65. And now she is a dual citizen, with USA passport, too. (That's the one we both hold in common, hee hee.) Her other is Philippines. Mine is Ireland. Living in Phils would be do-able----- until I need a hospital. Medicare won't cover you, living outside the USA. But you all knew that...
Comments
My experience with david's evaluations has been excellent and I hope you are not disparaging his cogent evaluations.
My attraction to SFGIX is future non-Asian emerging market exposure the fund will give me. After my this round of buys later if the fund performs to my expectation then will further increase investments. Also, This gives me little bit diversification from Mathews fund for my emerging market investment.
David's evaluations of new funds and analysis is of Excellent quality and can't seem to find any other source that I can rely more than him.
Like CaryRaleigh points out, SeaFarer is better positioned for emerging markets beyond Asia, with holdings in Latin America, Africa/Middle East, and emerging Europe.
FWIW, I like to hold a minimum of funds. If it were me, I'd consolidate all listed (MACSX + MAPIX + MSMLX) into SFGIX, or SIGIX its institutional equivalent.
I remain impressed with the way Andrew Foster and SeaFarer have launched this new fund.
This new fund has caused much confusion for me. I've always thought that Andrew Foster was a fine manager - have not decided if I'm willing to pay that high ER for another fund. I guess if he earns the fee then we're both happy. Still... I must try my best to keep my portfolio expense ratio down ( UNDER 1% ) the best I can. And with my purchase[s] of ARTGX that is under pressure already.
"i would not buy it. any fund i bought that david bought himself has been a looser for me!!!!"
How can you claim that? I own many funds that David has talked about and have been very pleased. Many times David only confirms my brilliance
I do want EM stock exposure outside Asia, and the etf EEMV is looking fairly attractive at this point if I don't go for a long-term position in SFGIX.
Scott & Fundalarm raise a good question about your portfolio, Max ....
=========
At Seafarer, our abiding goal as an investment adviser is to deliver long term performance. However, even as I view performance as paramount, I will not consider our firm a success unless it also achieves three ancillary objectives over the long term:
1. Seafarer is dedicated to lowering the costs associated with overseas investment. Investment in developing countries is legitimately an expensive proposition; and the Adviser’s small asset base hampers our ability to pass on further economies at the present moment. However I view it as one of the firm’s central duties to ensure that expenses become more affordable with scale, and over time.
2. Seafarer is determined to increase the transparency associated with its investment in developing countries. My aim is for Seafarer to continuously improve the transparency it offers to its clients, albeit subject to constraints imposed by fiduciary standards, regulation and compliance.
3. My hope is that Seafarer can reduce some of the frustration that often accompanies investment in developing countries. Seafarer’s investment strategies are necessarily exposed to risk, and the results cannot escape the impact of market volatility. However, my hope is that Seafarer’s investment strategies will mitigate at least a portion of this volatility, so that clients may invest with less frustration and more confidence over time.
I've said it before - I think the most important "diversification" these days is not large cap/mid-cap/small cap, but being globally diversified - it's an increasingly global economy and EM may not be doing so well right now, but it could easily reverse and US markets may cool very quickly. I don't think there is what I would call "decoupling", but I do think there have been periods over the last 3 years where EM has noticeably outperformed US and vice versa.
However, I wouldn't want to be all developed markets or all EM, and adjusting exposure up and down while remaining diversified can allow one to more likely have a smoother ride and possibly take advantage of downturns in one or the other.
Betting on Asia is fine, but I would not make an enormous (more than 50% of the portfolio) bet on it - as much as I believe in Asia, there is real risk (and/or the opportunity cost of a possibly substantial period of underperformance while you wait for the thesis to play out). I have made a few smallish broad fund bets, as well as a group of individual equities. I don't see really any more being devoted to EM.
If you were building another portfolio what one would you choose? MACSX or SFGIX?
I like that SFGIX has some Japan and Latin America in the mix. With me having so much invested with MAPIX I 've been looking for more investment house diversification. And having money invested outside of Matthews would do just that. But would it?
I would like your opinion.