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'm sorry VF, but you defending Hussman's fund and trying to make any comparison to MFLDX with it's superb track record is absurd. Considerable time??? Hussman has shown over more than considerable time, over a decade, that he has no skill at running a mutual fund... period. 'Me thinks' you are just stubborn and contrary to facts on this fund.
In my opinion, the long/short field of mutual funds is not needed in a diversified portfolio, mostly because there are very, very few of these funds that are any good. I don't own MFLDX and I would never buy it because of it's bloat, it's sell-out to Mainstay and it's high fee level. But, it if you are going to hold one of these funds for diversification, it is probably one of the 3 or 4 L/S funds worth owning. HSGFX could be the worst of the bunch.
As usual Junkster offers up some cogent thoughts regarding the fund, it's recent returns and L/S funds in general. I continue to hold it, partly because it's the MFLDX class with no reentry possible if I leave. Aronstein has seemed humbled by the fund's performance (unlike Hussman who's always talking about "a full market cycle" and reluctant to admit his well reasoned opinions haven't worked well for his investors.) Listened to the last Marketfield call, it seems they're now moving back into EM. Concerned that asset bloat is the problem but Aronstein stresses that it "shouldn't" be a factor with their style. We'll see, although as soon as the NY Life purchase of the fund was announced I was concerned that adding a big sales push would lead to this result.
Thanks for you comments. I elected to move on because I felt the AUM has just become to great to position the fund in short order to the ever changing macro environments through out the world.
1. Poor Fund Stewardship: As AUM have ballooned to $18.9B, there has not been a significant decrease in the exorbitant 1.39% management fee or the extremely high actual expense ratio of 2.66% (forget the M* data which is unreliable). Aronstein and the fund directors need to address this issue, but I doubt that they ever will as this fund is a very productive cash cow.
2. High Expenses Are a Headwind for Future Returns: There continues to be an inverse correlation between fund expenses and returns.
3. Troubled Space: There continues to be very few long-term winners in the L/S space, so your default position should be to avoid this space.
4. You Don't Need a L/S Fund: I have yet to read any objective evidence that investors need a dedicated L/S fund as part of a diversified portfolio. Fixed income may provide all the needed volatility dampening you need at a much lower cost.
Hi Ted, I sold MFLDX a few days, with a good profit, after I open this thread. Although, I feel Kevindow is on target with his comments ... They came after I sold. Old_Skeet
Comments
In my opinion, the long/short field of mutual funds is not needed in a diversified portfolio, mostly because there are very, very few of these funds that are any good. I don't own MFLDX and I would never buy it because of it's bloat, it's sell-out to Mainstay and it's high fee level. But, it if you are going to hold one of these funds for diversification, it is probably one of the 3 or 4 L/S funds worth owning. HSGFX could be the worst of the bunch.
Regards,
Ted
Thanks for you comments. I elected to move on because I felt the AUM has just become to great to position the fund in short order to the ever changing macro environments through out the world.
Old_Skeet
1. Poor Fund Stewardship: As AUM have ballooned to $18.9B, there has not been a significant decrease in the exorbitant 1.39% management fee or the extremely high actual expense ratio of 2.66% (forget the M* data which is unreliable). Aronstein and the fund directors need to address this issue, but I doubt that they ever will as this fund is a very productive cash cow.
2. High Expenses Are a Headwind for Future Returns: There continues to be an inverse correlation between fund expenses and returns.
3. Troubled Space: There continues to be very few long-term winners in the L/S space, so your default position should be to avoid this space.
4. You Don't Need a L/S Fund: I have yet to read any objective evidence that investors need a dedicated L/S fund as part of a diversified portfolio. Fixed income may provide all the needed volatility dampening you need at a much lower cost.
Kevin
Thanks for posting your comments on MFLDX. I think you covered all the bases including home plate. Nice long ball!
Old_Skeet
Regards,
Ted
Old_Skeet