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 agree with a lot of what David Winters has to say and like the theme that seems to back a large portion of the fund, but the fund overall has not been anything remarkable since inception. I think what the fund seems to see itself as (highly flexible, hedge fund-like vehicle) and what it has been (average mutual fund that has not put that many of the fund's supposed "tools" to work) are two different things.
I respect Mr. Winters and understand the argument that "I'm worth what I charge; if you disagree, invest elsewhere." While I don't disagree, I have invested elsewhere because of the high minimum and high expenses.
That said, Morningstar makes a pretty striking response to Scott's claim that it's an "average mutual fund that has not ..." They write:
Since the fund's late-2005 launch through April 2013, it has outpaced the typical world-stock fund in all three-year rolling periods, and its overall 7.6% annualized gain trumps the typical peer by more than 200 points. The fund has also performed particularly well in market dips. Over its lifetime, the fund has outpaced the category average in more than 90% of down markets (though only 35% of up markets).
Seems kind of strange that his 1Q2014 fact sheet compares his fund graphically to the S&P500. I know that he also makes the comparison to the MSCI World Index in a tabular format, but given that the graph is much more accessible to most people, I find that comparison odd.
I'll run the numbers when I hook-up. But I seem to remember WGRNX did not do very well in 2008/9. Can't remember how it fared in late 2011. But to Scott's point, I don't get sense the fund offers much downside protection. Mr. Winters is essentially a long-term, buy-and-hold, value investor. A very good one at that. Just hard to reconcile his high fee. Morningstar takes same issue on the fund's er. Funny thing is, if he reduced his fee, I suspect his ratings would increase (eg., bronze to silver or gold) and so would attendant AUM. And, I for one, would then take his campaign against excessive boardroom pay a bit more seriously.
This fund, as I stated in the past, is one drumstick away from being a turkey. 1-year in the 91 percentile, 3-year in the 65 percentile, and 5-year in the 48 percentile is not what I consider a fund you want to own. Regards, Ted
P.S. The fund ranks # 113 In U.S. News & World Report ranking of World Stock Funds.
I also see that Morningstar has it at the 48th percentile over the last 5 years. FWIW, I checked it against some of what I consider good world funds and it trailed DODWX, PGVFX and ARTGX while pretty much matching JPPIX and TWEBX but with more volatility. Doesn't seem worth such high expenses to me.
Also, it lost 39% in 2008 though that put it in the 30th percentile. Still seems pretty average, maybe a touch better.
I'll run the numbers when I hook-up. But I seem to remember WGRNX did not do very well in 2008/9. .
Yeah, that's sort of what I was going for. For a fund that supposedly has a number of tools at its disposal, the fund really didn't offer that much downside protection in 2008. Otherwise, I'm not saying that it's a poor fund, but I think this is an instance of a fund that thinks it's more than it is and is charging fees and minimums as such. The fund has talked about various tools and strategies, but in the time I've followed it, I've seen limited examples of it. There's been one or two instances of activism that I can remember (CTO is an example) and those made sense. The whole thing of Winters going after Coke has seemed sort of ridiculous. I'm not saying that I'm disagreeing with Winters as much as there's no way he was going to make any sort of progress with that and it comes off more as getting press.
How about somebody write a letter to the board at Wintergreen?
@Charles: 1. What address/email address do you suggest sending it to, and how would you suggest it be done to have them actually read it and not get totally ignored. I'd be willing to write a letter (preferably as an email), as I am a shareholder.
2. Appreciate if you would explain: "To put impact of high er another way...
.9815^8 =.8614.
Which means the fund charged investors 14% over the past 8 years."
2. Appreciate if you would explain: "To put impact of high er another way...
.9815^8 =.8614.
Which means the fund charged investors 14% over the past 8 years."
I don't understand this.....greek to me
thanks
The idea is that the expense ratio is 1.85% so you keep 98.15% of the funds returns each year. Thus in the second year you start out with 98.15% of your expense free gains and equity, but at the end of the year you only have 98.15% of the second years gains and equity or 98.15% of the 98.15% of the gains and equity from your initial investment (or .9815^2 of the original investment's gains and equity). It's another way of looking at "compounding costs."
@VintageFreak: I also got in at inception. And like you, I'm sticking it out, but will continue to monitor. I was extremely happy with David Winters as the manager of my Mutual Beacon Fund. I felt he was risk averse and very much a true blue value manager. But I am considering sending an email to the fund to express my displeasure at the ridiculous expense ratio, and the attitude that David Winters expressed when he answered Consuelo Mack's question (on WealthTrack 3/28/14). Not happy with his answer at all.
CONSUELO MACK: "One of the issues that some viewers have raised with us is they listen to you on WealthTrack and elsewhere and they say, “We really are intrigued by what Wintergreen’s doing. We like his approach, but why are his expenses so high?”
DAVID WINTERS: "But the thing is, we’re actually doing the work. The thing at Wintergreen is we do all these different types of securities. Most funds today, Consuelo, have become little more than index fund mimickers, and Wintergreen is anything but that as we talked about before, and to do the work and do the work properly is not cheap, and I think one of the fallacies is it’s whether you’re going to a doctor or your money doctor you don’t want to necessarily go for the cheapest alternative. You want to go for the best, and I think that what we do works. We’ve been able to have many shareholders who’ve been with us since the beginning, and people can stay with the program, and this idea that you can trade in and out or buy the cheapest … and I think the institutional share class addressed that issue."
I have always stuck with Gabelli, for decades, when he has been hammered for exactly the same reasons, and regularly pissed on by M*; but this sure does seem excessive. All the good ones 'do the work'. So he is saying his work is superior to others. Maybe.
I sent a letter to him about a week ago. Still no response. I took my first protest step by halting my automatic purchase program. I may go further and sell. The only thing that makes me hesitate would be the tax on the gains.
I just sent an email to the fund, asking them for an email address and point of contact where I can express my concerns either to the Board or David Winters
I agree with others that Wintergreen is a decent value-oriented fund, but hardly 'hedge-fund like.'
Like many, I was an avid Mutual Discovery shareholder when Michael Price ran it. He left for private endowments, and couldn't follow him - so I ultimately followed David Winters.
I was an early investor in Wintergreen, but always remained vexed at the excessive E.R.
His rant about Coke woke me up and is applicable to Wintergreen. David has a stable asset base, and would serve his investors well, if he lowered the expense ratio.
Let's understand the economies of scale at Mutual Shares do not exist at Wintergreen. We should never expect WGRNX expense ratio to match MDISX expense ratio @ same level of assets.
I'm hardly defending Winters, nor do I like paying more than I should. However, we need to look at the bigger picture here. Higher ER is an impediment to beating funds benchmark, or more importantly and regardless, YOUR benchmark. I've mentioned many times about my quest to totally move away from traditional L,M,S and G,B,V funds and diversify through manager rather than market risk. WGRNX is one such fund I own among many others, and from that perspective I don't look at it in isolation.
One important criteria for me to exit WGRNX is if I discover Mr. Winters is a Bullshit-artist. Then I would leave regardless of how his fund was performing.
I just sent an email to the fund, asking them for an email address and point of contact where I can express my concerns either to the Board or David Winters
How cool is that?! Bravo.
We should all be interested in how they respond, if at all. Be sure to note director pay as well, given they have so little skin in the game.
Lot of good discussion/comments in this thread, not sure I need to add more. Thanks.
This topic deserves to get more attention, like Ed Studzinsk's "It Costs How Much?" piece in commentary and David calling out Mr. Gabelli's excessive pay.
I've occasionally written funds, but it seems often that such an address isn't made available. The one that I've wanted to write was Hussman (not to be mean, but some genuine questions), but no email there. I'd write Winters if I saw an email. The nicest response was from Salient, where not only did the fund manager answer the question but offered the opportunity to discuss any other questions I had over the phone.
I think the other thing becomes I do think more fund managers should feel welcome here. I do think that we can have a civil discussion if a fund manager stopped by the board informally to answer a couple of questions. It's great to have lengthier Q & A calls, but if a manager could only answer a few questions on a thread, better than nothing.
Winters charges 1.85, FMI charges 1.00 for FMIJX. Although the FMI fund did not exist during 2007 - 2008, I'm confident it would've held up better than the Wintergreen Fund. I also voted with my feet. I'm pretty confident the FMI gents are also doing the work, they're just more shareholder friendly.
@Charles: They replied to my email request for a point of contact and email address, and even upped the ante and provided the point of contact's phone number. My point of contact works with David Winters at the adviser. I just sent them a letter addressing my concerns. I do believe I will hear back from them. Obviously I'm quite satisfied with the initial response I received.
Concur with most comments on Wintergreen fund. High ER is a real drag on total return unless the fund manages to outperform its index over long period. I invest with Michael Price when he ran the Mutual Series funds. He is a decent and serviceable replacement, but far from being a Michael Price.
As BrianW mentioned above that FMI management are much more shareholder friendly. And FMIJX is a solid substitute for Wintergreen fund.
Comments
That said, Morningstar makes a pretty striking response to Scott's claim that it's an "average mutual fund that has not ..." They write: For what it's worth,
David
Regards,
Ted
P.S. The fund ranks # 113 In U.S. News & World Report ranking of World Stock Funds.
.9815^8 =.8614.
Which means the fund charged investors 14% over the past 8 years.
Rain or shine.
No?
Also, it lost 39% in 2008 though that put it in the 30th percentile. Still seems pretty average, maybe a touch better.
1. What address/email address do you suggest sending it to, and how would you suggest it be done to have them actually read it and not get totally ignored. I'd be willing to write a letter (preferably as an email), as I am a shareholder.
2. Appreciate if you would explain: "To put impact of high er another way...
.9815^8 =.8614.
Which means the fund charged investors 14% over the past 8 years."
I don't understand this.....greek to me
thanks
Like is often the case, if you are in @ Inception, you tend to stick it out. I'm sticking it out.
@VintageFreak: I also got in at inception. And like you, I'm sticking it out, but will continue to monitor. I was extremely happy with David Winters as the manager of my Mutual Beacon Fund. I felt he was risk averse and very much a true blue value manager. But I am considering sending an email to the fund to express my displeasure at the ridiculous expense ratio, and the attitude that David Winters expressed when he answered Consuelo Mack's question (on WealthTrack 3/28/14). Not happy with his answer at all.
CONSUELO MACK: "One of the issues that some viewers have raised with us is they listen to you on WealthTrack and elsewhere and they say, “We really are intrigued by what Wintergreen’s doing. We like his approach, but why are his expenses so high?”
DAVID WINTERS: "But the thing is, we’re actually doing the work. The thing at Wintergreen is we do all these different types of securities. Most funds today, Consuelo, have become little more than index fund mimickers, and Wintergreen is anything but that as we talked about before, and to do the work and do the work properly is not cheap, and I think one of the fallacies is it’s whether you’re going to a doctor or your money doctor you don’t want to necessarily go for the cheapest alternative. You want to go for the best, and I think that what we do works. We’ve been able to have many shareholders who’ve been with us since the beginning, and people can stay with the program, and this idea that you can trade in and out or buy the cheapest … and I think the institutional share class addressed that issue."
http://wealthtrack.com/transcript-free/david-winters-first-class-merchandise-bargain-prices-transcript-3282014-1040/
Like many, I was an avid Mutual Discovery shareholder when Michael Price ran it. He left for private endowments, and couldn't follow him - so I ultimately followed David Winters.
I was an early investor in Wintergreen, but always remained vexed at the excessive E.R.
His rant about Coke woke me up and is applicable to Wintergreen. David has a stable asset base, and would serve his investors well, if he lowered the expense ratio.
I finally voted with my feet, and moved on.
I'm hardly defending Winters, nor do I like paying more than I should. However, we need to look at the bigger picture here. Higher ER is an impediment to beating funds benchmark, or more importantly and regardless, YOUR benchmark. I've mentioned many times about my quest to totally move away from traditional L,M,S and G,B,V funds and diversify through manager rather than market risk. WGRNX is one such fund I own among many others, and from that perspective I don't look at it in isolation.
One important criteria for me to exit WGRNX is if I discover Mr. Winters is a Bullshit-artist. Then I would leave regardless of how his fund was performing.
We should all be interested in how they respond, if at all. Be sure to note director pay as well, given they have so little skin in the game.
Lot of good discussion/comments in this thread, not sure I need to add more. Thanks.
This topic deserves to get more attention, like Ed Studzinsk's "It Costs How Much?" piece in commentary and David calling out Mr. Gabelli's excessive pay.
I think the other thing becomes I do think more fund managers should feel welcome here. I do think that we can have a civil discussion if a fund manager stopped by the board informally to answer a couple of questions. It's great to have lengthier Q & A calls, but if a manager could only answer a few questions on a thread, better than nothing.
http://www.hussmanfunds.com/pdf/HSA_AdvRelMgrPreInt.pdf
E.g.,
1) Why does each of the Hussman Funds have the word "Strategic" in its name? ...
3) Discuss your understanding of the concept of Market Climate.
As BrianW mentioned above that FMI management are much more shareholder friendly. And FMIJX is a solid substitute for Wintergreen fund.