Hi, guys.
In truth, the Blair fund (WESNX) wasn't particularly on my radar screen until you began discussing it in the recent Seafarer (SFGIX) thread. Spent a few minutes looking at the numbers for WESNX, SFGIX and Wasatch EM SC (WAEMX, closed) since that's one of the sector's flagship funds.
The most obvious place to start is the big picture: Seafarer is not trying to trawl the same waters as the other two.
- Wasatch is 95% invested, 83% small to midcap, MMC 1.8 billion, with a forward P/E of 17.
- Blair is 98% invested, 75% small to midcap, MMC 2.2 billion, with a forward P/E of 19.
- Seafarer is 98% invested, 50% micro to midcap, MMC 3.4 billion, with a forward P/E of 14.
- the average EM fund is more-or-less fully invested, 20% small to midcap, MMC 20 billion, with a forward P/E of 12.
Seafarer simultaneously has more developed market exposure (32% to 25% for the others - firms domiciled in the US and Europe whose earnings are predominantly generated in emerging markets) and more microcap exposure (6% versus zero for the others). Seafarer has a 1.65% yield, while the others are at zero.
The youngest of the three is Seafarer, which launched March 2012. Since the date of Seafarer's launch, $10,000 invested would have grown to:
- $13,500 Blair
- $11,800 Seafarer
- $10,500 Wasatch
- $10,100 Average EM
Since March 2012, the EM group has lost money in 11 months. Blair had four down months, Seafarer seven and Wasatch eight. In the months when the market has fallen, Blair outperformed the market on nine occasions, Seafarer on eight and Wasatch on five.
In a head-to-head comparison between Wasatch and the others, in down months Seafarer outperformed Wasatch on eight of nine occasions. Blair outperformed Wasatch on seven of eight occasions. (Why eight or nine rather than 11 as the base? Because there are months in which these funds are in the black even when the index has fallen; I've only looked at months when at least one of the three was in the red.)
I'm intrigued by Blair's performance. I'm reassured by Seafarer's and quite surprised by Wasatch's. I'm likely to look more into Blair (largish, but young) and just remain curious about Wasatch's (both too big and too old to fall within our universe).
For what interest it holds,
David
Comments
David
David, If you had clicked on the hyperlink, it would have opened the chart in full with the legend.
Anyway,here is the order starting from the top: WAFMX,WESNX,SFGIX,MSMLX and WAEMX
This statement is what I was referring to by the above.
David
My point in all this was for people to investigate the REASON for the performance differences among funds. And hopefully to do much of the work themselves. Where a fund has exposure and to what drives performance. And it also has implications for asset allocation decisions.
The M* numbers on SFGIX are close, but I always check the fund site to be sure now.
It's much preferable to use primary sources as you point out, and it only reinforces my point that investors need to do their OWN research instead of relying on others to do the lifting for them.
Best,
Caveat emptor.