Maybe a bit cynical. They were very public awhile ago donating to kidscan on the Cambell Live show. Given his funds are all effectively full, there is no real need for him to do marketing so I think he has a real charitable nature.
Printable View
Sure during a bull market, but in any other market active managers may do better.Quote:
This is why index funds are recommended over active funds. Lower fees, and the index beats out the majority of active fund managers (which is to be expected as an index automatically dumps losers and adds winners, so you are always on the right side of the rebalancing).
Pie funds I believe may be one of the best performing managers over the last 5 yrs but like I say lets see amoung all the fund managers when it ends
Good markets since end 2008 make most of us look like gurus, when the party ends we will see the real gurus! quote by bull
Wow, very broad generalization there. PIE funds have smashed the indexes, Milford are well ahead too. Saying index funds are recommended over active funds is way too simplistic. The key is asset allocation. If you are in the wrong indexes then you might outperform an active manager in a fund for that asset class/subclass, but you most likely will not outperform a skilled active manager that is investing across different asset classes/subclasses and actively adjusting exposure to asset classes, geographic regions, FX etc. The key is picking the right manager. I use both PIE and Milford and am very happy, but they only manage <20% of my holdings as their NZ/AU focused funds invest in a small part of the investment universe.
Here is a counter argument to you sating "an index automatically dumps losers and adds winners". Look at when XRO was added to the MSCI global index, most of the index funds tracking that index bought at $35+ and will now need to sell at half that when/if XRO drops from the index this month (an will also have an FX loss too as the NZD has fallen >10% since then). The smart active managers (e.g Milford) bought XRO at $1-$4 well before it appeared in any index, and have sold down after it was bought by index tracking funds at 10+ times the price. PIE Funds are a small cap specialists and will be buying future winners well before they are large enough to enter most indexes.
I have held both index and managed funds. According to my very rough records 100k invested in MZY, OZY and Pie's AGF in 2007 has been turned into MZY 77k, OZY 120k and Pie's AGF 351k. No dividends included in this very simple calculation. I no longer hold index funds and am a very happy Pie holder.
Yes of course XRO is a minuscule % of the total index, but how many other stocks in that index have also been bought high and sold low by the passive manager being required to follow the index? But I know I can not argue with a passive index convert so will not waste my breath. All I can speak of is personal experience, having had a large chunk of my portfolio managed by a passive manager and having totally outperformed with my own investments and with investments with (carefully selected) passive managers.
Indexes and passive managers will give you the average and for some people that is acceptable. I have been raised to not be content with being average and will always strive to far exceed the average. I pick active managers that share the same philosophy and passion for being the best, not just average. I liken passive managers to the students I went to school/university with who were happy to get 50% in an exam and that was their target. My target has always been 100%
All Pie's Australasian funds are closed.
I could never understand the holding in TTN, but then again im a person who believes no company can defy macro headwinds