I regard the record of managers who have gone off and formed their own fund/fund families as mixed. For example, there's Yacktman, who underperformed the fund he left in 1992 for the rest of that decade, but has done great since. His problems in the 90s culminated with the distraction of an ouster attempt by the board of directors (1998). Inverting that pattern, we have tom Marsico, who did much better than Janus 20, but after selling out to BofA, botched the buying back of the fund family (defaulting on the leveraged buyout), and currently the family seems to be imploding. I tend to regard Winters (wintergreen, from Mutual Series) as someone who has done okay, not a clear winner. Others have had more clear success records.
Regarding SFGIX's performance - there is no YTD figure that potential buyers can look at. And if they look at monthly comparisons with MACSX, they'll see that of all five full months of performance for SFIGX (March - July), MACSX outperformed in four, and overall as well.

Month	SFGIX	MACSX
July	0.20	3.13
June	6.05	4.85
May	-7.17	-6.75
April	-1.07	0.90
March	0.68	0.90

Supporting articles:
Marsico CFO: Worth it to surrender half of the company Crain's Nov 16, 2010
Checking Up on Past Managers of the Year M* Nov 15, 2005
Great Funds Go Head-to-Head M* July 25, 2005

Hi folks...new poster here.
Similar to Kenster, I hold several Matthews funds including MACSX and MAPTX. I swapped MAPIX for SFGIX a short time ago. I hope to find Mr. Foster's comments illuminating relative to the original question as to viability, as this has been a personal concern for a few weeks.
Two points:
A comment was made comparing SFGIX with Eric Cinnamond's fund, ARIVX. Given the fact that Mr. Cinnamond joined a fairly well established asset management firm, I believe a more apt comparison might be to the Grandeur Peak funds...a new firm created by a few Wasatch boys. I hold the Global option, GPGOX.
They opened 2 funds in October of last year, as readers of this forum would certainly know.
New firm...new funds...but now with almost $240M under management.
Secondly, and unfortunately for Mr. Foster, I think that fund flows may be light for the remainder of the year given my interpretation of investor behavior.
If someone wants a foothold in the foreign/EM space off the beaten track and doesn't read all available materials, I do believe that the average investor would consider Matthews over Seafarer for this role if comparing the funds side by side...for the overly simplistic reason that they would do a YTD comparison of the funds.
SFGIX launched in the latter part of February of this year....when the lion's share of Matthew's gains were already made when looking at the month by month returns.

Reply to @STB65: While I agree with the spirit of your post, investing is not charity and nobody should be basing their decisions on their desire to "support a new fund." Folks need to consider both the unique advantages that a new fund offers vs. the risks of investing in a new fund. The fund's ability to attract sufficient assets is definitely a factor because too low an asset base means high expenses, difficulties attracting talented analysts and staff, and the risk that the fund may close altogether.
This is not a knock against Mr. Foster. SFGIX seems like a very interesting fund and I will keep it on my watch list. But at least for the time being, it is still a new fund with a small asset base and has some extra risks inherent to that. If you are want to be an early investor, you need to be convinced that SFGIX has enough unique advantages to outweigh those extra risks.

I have a penchant for selecting funds that go out of business for various reasons. One reason I have held back investing in SFGIX. In this case, the inability of the fund to garner assets. Which is SO strange given the pedigree of the manager, it is almost baffling.
Does anyone have any insight into whether Seafarer at least has considerable assets in private accounts? That might let manager offset the costs of running a fund with low assets. Another year or two of this and I worry SFGIX will either dissappear and Seafarer with it and manager will go take up a job managing money with large corporation.

Reply to @scott: Me too scott after your original report. I'm in. Simply could not resist opportunity to invest with Redleaf. Current portfolio then, in order of %, high to low: RNSIX, FAAFX, WBMIX, SFGIX, DODBX. Just five sweet funds. Three first heard about on MFO. Oh, and a small stake in BAC.

PB,
It is a tough decision, so much so that I've got both for now, with SFGIX in audition mode as a small position.
I agree with you on the pros and cons ... he made a good case for his approach, I thought, in the conference call, and the diversification benefit (small as it is, outside Asia) is attractive too, but there's not much of a bench on the team, it's expensive, and it's slightly underperforming MACSX so far, as well as being a bit more volatile. I want to follow it pretty closely, which for me is much easier to do with a small position, but I'm definitely not ready to go all-in with AF on this one.
Good luck, AJ

This is a tough decision for me. Andrew Foster has set up a rather intriguing new fund. His new website is very informative as was his last conference call. I still have some slight reservations.
1. Research staff
2. Fees
Does he have any analyst on payroll besides himself and the co-manager?
Any opinions about this new fund?

For you, I'd recommend something like this (this is just thrown together quickly.)
10% SFGIX
10% MAPIX or MACSX
10% SGOVX (or whatever share class)
10% FPACX
15% TEGBX
10% PREMX
10% TGINX (due to the greater flexibility - including EM corporates, etc)
5% MFLDX
15% YACKX
5% MPGFX
30% US/30% Foreign (mostly EM)/35% bonds (mostly EM) and 5% alternative.
I'm looking at CGVVX, but nothing is really standing out to me (personally). In the world stock realm, I'd rather recommend Wintergreen (WGRNX), which continues to have the emerging market consumer as a sizable theme (which you may find of interest). WGRNX hasn't done as well this year, but I'm pretty positive on former Mutual Series manager David Winters.

Kenster,
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.

Reply to @Charles: Wonder why this chart shows data for SFGIX prior to this year?

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.

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 ....

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.

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.

Hello, all. What do yooz think?

Reply to @Investor: Clearly building a team of analyst to cover the global stocks, especially within the micro- and small-cap universes, is a huge task. This side we (investors) do often see easily. Only time will tell how this process evolves as it reflects through the market cycles.
Personally I think SFGIX would be more challenged with added coverage on stocks, convertibles, and bonds, globally rather than Asia-centric focus. I hope there is sufficient analyst support for Mr. Foster to be successful.

Reply to @claimui: I totally agree that performance of SFGIX is likely to deviate from MACSX with the investment universe now that it spans beyond Asia. It can also swing both directions depending on whether Mr. Foster has all resource to cover all regions, and the strategy still work in South America, for example.
With smaller asset base to start, GPROX may out-perform in the short term comparing to WAGOX. Otherwise I expect them to be interchangeable.

Reply to @Sven: My question is really more whether folks expect GPGOX to be a distinct and compelling alternative to WAGOX, or if these two funds will be more or less interchangeable. I'm thinking in comparison to MACSX vs. SFGIX, where the two funds have performed similarly thus far but where SFGIX is clearly pursuing a distinct strategy and I would expect it deviate from MACSX in the future.

Hi MikeM. Thinking there is an easy answer and tougher answer to your question.
Easy first. You would probably enjoy the article by Steve Goldberg entitled "Goldberg's Picks: 5 Best Low-Risk Stock Funds."
Here is link: http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/value/archive/goldberg-picks-best-low-risk-stock-funds.html
The five are: Sequoia Fund (symbol SEQUX), T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation (PRWCX), Forester Value (FVALX), FPA Crescent (FPACX), and First Eagle Global (SGENX).
All but FVALX have outperformed SP500 the past decade:

Honestly, Goldberg is not afraid to take a stand and explains why in simple terms. He has some similar articles on bond and allocations funds. I first became impressed with him after reading his article questioning Bruce Berkowitz's heavy move into financials in late 2010.
Here is link to that insightful article:
http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/value/archive/kiplinger-25-fairholme-funds-big-bet-on-financial-stocks.html?si=1
I like Bee's suggestion that you assess any gain/risk fund decision against a standard like PIMCO Income Fund PONDX. (Or, PIMIX, its institutional equivalent.)
I see Oakmark Equity & Income (OAKBX) and FPA Cresent (FPACX) suggested by several on the allocation side. Both have done great this difficult decade, although I believe are closed to new investors. I remember when Dodge & Cox Balanced Fund (DODBX) was in same category, until it got slammed in 2008. It still beats SP500 over the long haul, and I want to believe it learned from its mistake and will be stronger going forward. That said, Vanguard Wellington (VWELX) admirably did not stumble and remains a buy-and-hold choice open to new investors, as pointed out by JohnN.
In fact, all of these allocation funds have also beat SP500 this decade:

An under-the-radar equity fund is Auxier Focus (AUXFX), which I first read about on FundAlarm, has consistently done well and is just now starting to get recognized.
Note that all of Goldberg's picks and the ones I've mentioned above have less volatility than SP500. A couple, like Forester Value and Oakmark Equity, are substantially less volatile. So, it's easy to see why these are comfortable buy-and-hold picks.
OK, now for tougher part.
In 1974, Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) lost nearly half its value...in one year! BRK.A has more than twice the volatility of SP500. But who would not have wanted to own this stock for the last 41 years, where it has gained more than 20% annually? (Granted, not a mutual fund proper, but it represents the best in equities...let's call it a surrogate mutual fund.)
Other examples of higher volatility funds that have never lost more value in any three-year period than SP500's worst...but have made substantially more money over the long term: Vanguard Health Care (VGHCX), FMI Focus (FMIOX), Fidelity Select Consumer Staples (FDFAX), Artisan Mid Cap (ARTMX), and Vanguard Energy (VGENX). All represent excellent buy-and-hold picks, but you really gotta be willing to hold after that one really bad year.
One last thing: You list good choices. But for what it is worth, I personally do not like to own more than 4-5 funds at one time. Currently, I own: RNSIX, FAAFX, FAIRX, SFGIX, and DODBX.

For what interest it holds, I offered Mr. Waggoner four funds for his consideration:
1. Wells Fargo Absolute Return (WARAX - great ticker symbol) - which is the retail version of GMO Benchmark Free Allocation. Downside: 5.5% load plus Wells doubled GMO's e.r.
2. Marketfield (MFLDX) - given its distinctiveness and coming sale.
3. Seafarer (SFGIX) and 4. RiverPark (RPHYX)- because there's something to be said for the "voting with your feet" criterion when it comes reflecting a sincere endorsement.
David