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.
Sorry. Intrepid has an integrity issue that they just want to sweep under the rug. Before this fund family is taken seriously, it needs to be acknowledged, disclosed, discussed.
Sorry. Intrepid has an integrity issue that they just want to sweep under the rug. Before this fund family is taken seriously, it needs to be acknowledged, disclosed, discussed.
@Charles, I think you're exactly right! If they need to disclose it in the summary prospectus, presumably because the SEC wouldn't let them get away with less, then not disclosing the information where the general public tends to gather is a clear indication that their judgment is not focused on those who are paying their bills and high salaries, but on those very same salaries. Thanks for pointing this out and although I don't currently have any investments with them, I won't in the future either until and unless this is cleared up satisfactorily. And if this is common practice it seems to me that its either worth changing the common practice, or avoiding those firms that find this acceptable.
I used to have a boss that felt you either had integrity or not. There were not degrees of integrity, he would explain.
I'm not so sure.
I've come to seek managers and fund houses that disclose failures as well as successes.
Maintain communication even in bad times. Actually, especially in bad times.
Have interests aligned with the interests of their shareholders. Which as David and Ed have written about, probably means at some level that they manage money because they love to manage money...not just to accumulate assets.
Do what they tell you they are going to do.
Charge no load. No 12b-1 fees. Have minimal share classes. Maintain below average fees. Strive to make fees as low as possible.
I don't always succeed.
But in any case I think we should all try to hold managers and fund houses accountable, as best we can.
Comments
It's because of the way they handled ICMYX.
They merged it into ICMUX this past January and touted the reduction in fee.
ICMUX, which only dates back about 4 years, is a Great Owl Fund.
Top quintile performer. Max drawdown only -1.4% (September 2011).
Folks on the board have compared it to David Sherman's conservative funds (RPHYX and RSIVX).
All good right?
Except ICMYX was actually the oldest share class with about 7 years performance.
And, it contained performance for a steady-eddy income fund that would be disconcerting for very conservative investors.
It drew down -14.6% in November 2008.
Here's current performance snap shot from their website:
Note the inception date of Intrepid Income. Performance before August 2010 does not appear, since it was in the different share class.
To their credit, they do show the earlier quarterly performance in the fund's summary prospectus.
But most fund screening tools and performance plotters (eg. M*) will just not pick this up.
As if the poor performance never happened.
I think it's borderline non-disclosure, calling into question the firm's integrity. So, hard for me to recommend.
Maybe this stuff is common practice and I'm being too critical.
Just does not seem right.
Regards,
Ted
I'm not so sure.
I've come to seek managers and fund houses that disclose failures as well as successes.
Maintain communication even in bad times. Actually, especially in bad times.
Have interests aligned with the interests of their shareholders. Which as David and Ed have written about, probably means at some level that they manage money because they love to manage money...not just to accumulate assets.
Do what they tell you they are going to do.
Charge no load. No 12b-1 fees. Have minimal share classes. Maintain below average fees. Strive to make fees as low as possible.
I don't always succeed.
But in any case I think we should all try to hold managers and fund houses accountable, as best we can.